Oral Answers to Questions

NORTHERN IRELAND

The Secretary of State was asked—

Education

Graham Allen: What proposals for the revised curriculum which will operate from September will broaden the types of religious and non-religious value system education in schools in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

Angela Smith: The revised curriculum aims to develop young people as contributors to society by fostering citizenship. Pupils are given the opportunity to learn about a range of religions, values and ethics, and about the importance of respecting diversity.

Graham Allen: Thinking back to the beginning of the troubles, almost 30 years ago, where does my hon. Friend think we might be today, had we started then to introduce more secular education in Northern Ireland and not allowed further faith schools of any denomination to be built? I know that she is conducting an education review. Will she put herself in the position of being at the Dispatch Box in 30 years' time and begin that process in earnest now, so that young children are not indoctrinated with one religion or another at school, but only if their parents choose to do so at home? Will she take steps, through the review, to introduce such a proposal and to have more secular education in Northern Ireland?

Angela Smith: I thank my hon. Friend for his confidence that I will be at the Dispatch Box in 30 years' time. He makes a plea for integrated education, and there is clearly a great unmet demand on the part of parents for such education. The Government have obligations in that regard and dealing with this issue is a challenge, but we must also meet the challenge of falling school rolls. There are 50,000 spare places and one in eight school desks are empty. The review that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has initiated will consider how we can be smarter in managing the school estate and how we can ensure that we meet parental demand for integrated education, along with every other form of education.

Sammy Wilson: I am sure that the Minister views with horror the prospect of standing at the Dispatch Box in 30 years' time as the Minister with responsibility for education in Northern Ireland. Does she accept that having six different education providers in Northern Ireland has wasted resources and contributed to the overcapacity in school provision to which she referred? Will she explain to the House why she did not take the chance that she had under the review of public administration to cut the number of funded providers and why she continues to open Irish-medium schools and integrated schools, for example, in areas where there is a surplus—

Mr. Speaker: Order. One supplementary is fine.

Angela Smith: I suspect that there is little difference between the hon. Gentleman and me in respect of the review that we are taking forward. He is right to say that having so many different education providers has proved very expensive, but the review of public administration cuts the number of education administrators. In examining the existing types of education during the forthcoming review, the key issue has to be parental choice. He suggests that parents do not want Irish-medium education and integrated education, but such demand does exist. We have to be a bit smarter in how we provide such education and see whether we can share services to cut bureaucracy and administration while still meeting parental choice.

Paramilitary Organisations

Lady Hermon: If he will make a statement on the level of co-operation between loyalist paramilitaries and the Independent Monitoring Commission.

David Hanson: The Government will continue towork with loyalist representatives to ensure decommissioning. The IMC will make itself available to talk to a wide range of organisations, but it does not disclose the nature of such contact or the level of co-operation.

Lady Hermon: I am most grateful to the Minister for that perfect parliamentary response, which is entirely accurate but tells me nothing. Does he agree with the IMC's latest assessment of the progress—or lack of it—made by loyalist paramilitaries toward decommissioning their weaponry?

David Hanson: I am disappointed to note that the IMC has concluded that the Ulster Defence Association in particular is deeply involved in violence, especially in the events in Whiterock last September. The Government and I encourage organisations on the loyalist side that are involved in violence to move away from it. I am confident that we will have the opportunity to discuss proposals to ensure that those organisations do move away from violence, and I hope that progress will be made this year in that regard. As with all violence associated with paramilitary activity, it is not acceptable to the Government. We need to take violence and intimidation out of the politics of Northern Ireland. The IMC has identified that it still exists and I repeat that the Government find that unacceptable. We need to find mechanisms to ensure that we move on from that situation.

Eddie McGrady: I am sure that the Minister is aware that the IMC has been advised that
	"the UDA is prepared to address the issue of arms in the context of a satisfactory consideration by the British Government of its community's socio-economic concerns."
	Does the Minister agree that there are three lessons to be learned here? First, much of the social deprivation in areas controlled by paramilitaries is in fact caused by paramilitaries. Secondly, socio-economic problems should be addressed irrespective of paramilitaries. Thirdly, the addressing of such problems should not be regarded as a reward for ceasing to commit crimes of violence and terror, as has happened in the past. These issues should be disconnected and socio-economic matters should be addressed irrespective of what the paramilitaries are doing.

David Hanson: I am happy to say that I agree with my hon. Friend's analysis of the situation. The report being compiled by my chief official in the loyalist areas task force, Alan Shannon, has identified the influence of paramilitary activities as one of the specific blocks to making progress on social and economic matters in those areas. We need to address those deep-seated problems, but the Government will not be held to ransom by a trade-off between taking action on them and decommissioning. Decommissioning is central to making political progress in Northern Ireland: we want it to happen, but we also want there to be social justice, and to tackle economic deprivation.

Ian Paisley: The Minister is aware of our proposals about the districts that need help and I heartily endorse what the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) said. Such aid cannot amount to a reward system for paramilitaries who say, "If you do this, we'll do that." Will the Minister give me an assurance that the elected representatives in those areas will be the first to negotiate with him about these matters? They have been elected by the people to do so.

David Hanson: The right hon. Gentleman will know that I have undertaken a number of engagements—I think 46 so far—in various areas across Northern Ireland, and that I have looked at these problems. It is right that paramilitary influence is one of the major stumbling blocks to making progress in many of the areas of economic deprivation, and I have met 12 or 13 Members of the Assembly from the right hon. Gentleman's own party to discuss the matter. As my hon. Friend said, we need to tackle social and economic deprivation, and at the same time take the gun out of Northern Ireland politics. That applies both to the IRA and to the loyalist paramilitary organisations and is an essential prerequisite to progress. The continuation of threats, intimidation and armed activity is one of the blocks to tackling social and economic deprivation in many parts of Northern Ireland.

Patrick Cormack: Is not the biggest stumbling block the continued involvement of paramilitaries from both sides in organised crime?

David Hanson: Absolutely. The hon. Gentleman chairs the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, which is examining that very issue. He will know that organised crime is a key problem and that, sadly, many paramilitaries—especially on the loyalist side now—are still involved. We must decide how to tackle that, and all the ministerial team agree that there will be no room in Government for lack of action against criminality and paramilitary involvement in crime. We must look at how, in the long term, we can take the gun out of loyalist politics—a point that takes us back to the question asked by the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon). That is central to Northern Ireland's economic success, and especially to those deprived areas that in part are held back by the influence of the loyalist paramilitaries.

David Lidington: There is evidence that paramilitary organisations, both loyalist and republican, are moving assets from criminal enterprises into legitimate businesses. In view of that, can the Minister give an assurance that the police and the Assets Recovery Agency will continue to pursue the profits of crime, even if they have been laundered in that way, so that no paramilitary group can benefit from preying on the communities of Northern Ireland?

David Hanson: I am pleased to give the hon. Gentleman an unequivocal yes to that question. It is clear to the Government that profits are being made from criminality throughout Northern Ireland. That problem is being dealt with by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and by the Under-Secretary of State, my hon.Friend the Member for St. Helens, South (Mr.   Woodward). They have made it clear that the Assets Recovery Agency has a mandate to pursue the profits of crime, and the hon. Gentleman will know that it has made major efforts in that respect over the past couple of weeks. People in Northern Ireland who are involved in criminality or paramilitary activity need to know that the Government will close them down and remove the assets when we find out who is responsible for their generation.

Invest Northern Ireland

Gregory Campbell: What measures Invest Northern Ireland is taking to assist economic regeneration in areas where substantial job losses are likely to occur within the next three months.

Angela Smith: Invest NI has helped client companies throughout Northern Ireland become more entrepreneurial, innovative and internationally oriented, offering £400 million of assistance towards £1.5 billion of total planned investment. Where clients encounter difficulties, Invest NI proactively tries to avert redundancies. Where they prove unavoidable, Invest NI and the Department for Employment and Learning work closely with the company to minimise their effects.

Gregory Campbell: The Minister will be aware that 380 of my constituents and their families face a bleak future after Farm Fed Chickens announced its possible closure within three months. Will she ensure that Invest NI increases the lamentable number of potential inward investors in my constituency over the past few years so as to replace those jobs with durable, high-quality employment opportunities?

Angela Smith: I assure the hon. Gentleman that Invest Northern Ireland is already working with Farm Fed Chickens to look at ways in which we can help to research alternative markets. The Department for Employment and Learning is also providing advice and support for workers who have been made redundant. Invest Northern Ireland is demand-led and supports investors who want to invest in Northern Ireland. The key to ensuring that Invest Northern Ireland can attract investors is the skills of workers in Northern Ireland. That is why the skills and science fund, launched by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, is so important. It will ensure that we have the skills that attract investors to invest and create jobs in Northern Ireland.

Alasdair McDonnell: In taking measures to tackle recent unemployment, could we begin to develop a strategy to tackle long-term unemployment? Does the Minister agree that the best opportunities for economic growth lie in high-wage, high-value added technology? We need a greater focus on the newer technologies, especially biotechnology, where we might not be as focused as we could be.

Angela Smith: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that that is where the focus is needed, and that is where the focus is. There is considerable investment in biotechnology to show that Northern Ireland can be a world leader in that area. The skills and science fund is the key to ensuring that we get those high-value technological jobs that will attract investors and create more sustainable long-term jobs in Northern Ireland.

Lembit �pik: Does the Minister accept that, as we go into yet another round of talks, they are once again about the constitutional issues and does she agree that we need to start focusing on the practical economic realities in Northern Ireland? In that context, will she agree to consider setting up an all-party forum to look in detail at the problems facing the Northern Ireland economy, accepting that such a format may be useful in the future for education and health issues?

Angela Smith: I guide the hon. Gentleman to the speech by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to the Fabian Society, in which he made those very points about engaging everybody in looking at the future of Northern Ireland. We have several forums for debate and discussion on such issues and I am not sure that a further forum would add value. I can however give him a guarantee that the forums that we have will be used to ensure that we obtain investment and provide jobs, and we will ensure that the work force have the skills to take advantage of that investment. That is the key to attracting investment to provide long-term sustainable jobs.

Laurence Robertson: As we discussed in the Northern Ireland Grand Committee yesterday, there are several bright spots in the economy of Northern Ireland, but there are one or two problems. The Minister will be aware that many people in Northern Ireland are concerned that the Province is over-dependent on the public sector, which appears to be growing. What does she intend to do to redress that growing imbalance?
	Invest NI has raised several concerns, such as the low spending on research and development by businesses, the low rate of business start-ups and the fact that Northern Ireland has the highest economic inactivity rates in the UK. Those are real problems and I wish the Minister well in tackling them. Can she tell us exactly what she will do to improve matters?

Angela Smith: The hon. Gentleman is quoting from my right hon. Friend's speech last week, in which he identified those very problems. The hon. Gentleman can be a little negative, as I pointed out to him yesterday, but employment levels are the highest ever, unemployment is the lowest average in the UK, manufacturing output is growing and is significantly higher than in the rest of the UK, and manufacturing exports are up. I take the point about the over-reliance on the public sector, which is why the review of public administration would reduce the number of councils from 26 to seven and reduce the number of public bodies. That is also why the work being done by Invest NI to grow the private sector is so important. I accept the hon. Gentleman's point, but he should not underestimate the gains that are being made.

Hospital Waiting Times

Adrian Bailey: What steps he is taking to reduce waiting times for hospital treatment in Northern Ireland.

Shaun Woodward: We are undertaking a dramatic reform programme in Northern Ireland. As regards in-patients, one year ago more than 4,000 patients were waiting more than 12 months on in-patient and day case waiting lists and nearly 1,000 waited more than 18 months. Within a few weeks, we will be on track to ensure that nobody in Northern Ireland will wait more than 12 months, and I will shortly announce further reductions in in-patient waiting lists.

Adrian Bailey: It is not altogether clear from my hon. Friend's reply whether that period includes the time from GP referral. Can he tell me what steps he is taking to ensure that the overall time delay is reduced?

Shaun Woodward: I am glad that my hon. Friend raised that question. Out-patient lists in Northern Ireland have been an especially huge problem and the number of people waiting for referrals has been considerable. Until recently, nearly one in nine people in Northern Ireland were on out-patient lists, and 10 per cent. of them were waiting for more than two years. For that reason, I have announced a dramatic reform programme for out-patient lists to ensure that by 2008 no patient will wait more than 13 weeks from time of consultation with a GP to seeing a consultant. We will bring an end to those lengthy lists by a programme of reform and investment.

Iris Robinson: On behalf of all multiple sclerosis sufferers in Northern Ireland, I thank the Minister for his announcement yesterday of the release of an additional 2 million for MS sufferers who need access to beta interferon. In two years, I shall come back to check that no one is on the waiting list.
	What targets has the Minister set to tackle child and adolescent psychiatry out-patient waiting times, which can extend to four years? What efforts will be made to enhance work force capacity in that speciality?

Shaun Woodward: I pay tribute to the hon. Lady's work with the Multiple Sclerosis Society on the campaign to help to bring about the announcement that I made yesterday. There are 163 people waiting for treatment and they will indeed come off the list within the next two years, so nobody will wait.
	On waiting times for mental health patients, I shall shortly make an announcement about mental health in Northern Ireland that will cover a broad spectrum, including those in mental health dealing with younger people. I hope that I shall be able to please the hon. Lady with an announcement similar to yesterday's.

Northern Ireland Assembly

Daniel Kawczynski: When he expects to lift the suspension of the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Peter Hain: The Prime Minister and I have made it clear that 2006 is decisive for the process. I want the institutions restored as soon as possible, and we held constructive discussions with all the parties at Hillsborough on Monday to discuss the way forward.

Daniel Kawczynski: The right hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) confirmed to me yesterday that his party will not take part in Stormont unless it is confident that the IRA has given up its weapons. Will the Secretary of State give the House an assurance that the Government will not try to bludgeon that party into submission? Only when it is confident that the IRA has given up its weapons will it agree to participate in the new chamber.

Peter Hain: Knowing the right hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) as well as I have been able to do over past months, I can tell the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) that nobody tries to bludgeon himor at least they do so at their peril, so I am certainly not going down that road.
	Things cannot continue as they are: 2006 is a make-or-break year. The clock is ticking. The Assembly is costing 9 million a year, with Assembly Members not doing their jobs but receiving salaries and expenses averaging 85,000 a year. That situation cannot continue for ever and everybody realises that there must be some energy and momentum in the political process, which we intend to achieve.

Peter Robinson: Does the Secretary of State accept that many people in Northern Ireland feel that he has been dipping into his optimism pills too much[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must be heard. This is an important issue.

Peter Robinson: In his timetable, the Secretary of State hopes that legislation on constitutional issues will be put before the House by April. Does he accept that, if he cannot make that journey in one step, a phased approach must be more sensible, so will he consider starting the process with a lower level of devolution?

Peter Hain: That is one of the very proposals that the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. and hon. Friends have put to me in their Facing Reality document, and it is one that we intend to discuss in some detail at the next meeting on 20 February. In the meantime, however, there is a legislative opportunity in the business programme to introduce legislation to take forward some of the detailed, comprehensive proposals of December 2004, to which his party made a major contribution, and I want to consult the other parties on the detail to get agreement to make that legislative change in April, if I can.

Andrew MacKinlay: Has the Secretary of State noticed, when he walks down any high street in Northern Ireland, that there are more offices of Members of the Stormont Assembly than chemist's shops? Is it not time that we capped such public expenditure? I can accept all that he said earlier, but to put additional moneys on top of that this afternoon is unacceptable to his taxpayers and to mine.

Peter Hain: I am not going to anticipate the debate this afternoon, but I will say that there is an additional point behind the one that my hon. Friend makes: the people of Northern Ireland are fed up with the fact that their politicians are not doing their jobs. People elected to an assembly ought to be in an assembly, up and running, doing their jobs, which is what these discussions are all about achieving. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask for quietness in the Chamberotherwise, it is unfair.

Tobias Ellwood: Does the Secretary of State agree that anyone wishing to participate in the national Assembly should relinquish any link with criminal activity and that, if they re-establish those links, they should be removed from the new national Assembly?

Peter Hain: We want to see criminality stamped out of Northern Ireland and not infecting its politics, whether on the republican or loyalist side. Last week's report from the Independent Monitoring Commission showed very extensive progress by the IRA, but there is still too much localised criminality, and we will continue to bear down on that and it must stop.

David Lidington: We very much hope that the talks in the political initiative that the Government have now set in train will succeed and result in the restoration of inclusive devolution to Northern Ireland, but the right hon. Gentleman mentioned last week's IMC report. Does he accept that it confirmed, contrary to the views earlier voiced by the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Woodward), that leading members of the republican movement are still involved in serious organised crime and that it would be unreasonable to expect

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Peter Hain: I very much welcome the hon. Gentleman's support for the political process. I know that he and his party wish that it succeeds and I think that it can succeed. The IMC report, of course, pointed to localised criminality, which must be stopped, but it also made it absolutely clearI am happy to quote all the passagesthat criminal operations, including robberies, have been closed down and that the leadership of the Provisional IRA has set its objectives clearly on the strategic focus of political and democratic methods. He ought to welcome that, and I know that he does.

Independent Monitoring Commission

Rosie Cooper: What assessment he has made of the most recent report from the Independent Monitoring Commission.

Peter Hain: This is a positive report, which states that the IRA leadership is delivering its promise to end terrorism, but there is still too much local criminality.

Rosie Cooper: Although I accept that the IMC report referred to localised IRA criminality, does my right hon. Friend believe that the report confirms that there is a world of difference in the situation in Northern Ireland, even compared with just 12 months ago?

Peter Hain: Yes, indeed. My hon. Friend is right that the IMC did confirm that there has been a huge change, a sea change, compared with what occurred even a year agolet alone five, 10, 20 or 30 years ago, when people were being killed or bombed pretty well every day in Northern Ireland. That is why, as the report confirms, the leadership of the republican movement has set a strategic course on democratic and peaceful politics. We ought to support that, while insisting that local criminality is stopped and closed down for ever.

William McCrea: Does the Secretary of State realise that, no matter how much guff and bluff there is from Ministers, Sinn Fein-IRA and their colleagues are still involved in criminal activity in Northern Ireland? Those who are connected to that are not worthy of being called true democrats and we should move on without them.

Peter Hain: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that any republicans, including from the Provisional IRA, who are still involved in especially petrol smuggling and cigarette smugglingthe IMC report says that some are even though operations have been closed downmust stop their activities. The IMC will continue to report on such activity and we will continue to demand that it is stopped. We will continue to support the police and the Assets Recovery Agency in their work.
	The hon. Gentleman will also agree that the report confirms a massive change that is light years away from the old dark days of violence in Northern Ireland. Sinn Fein leaders have played an important part in achieving that objective.

Mark Durkan: Does the Secretary of State recognise that parties would do better to reflect on the full reality of the IMC report rather than reacting to reactions? Does he agree that both Sinn Fein and the Democratic Unionist party, for their own purposes, have exaggerated the negative aspects of the IMC report rather than the positive aspects? Does he also agree that the Governments would have helped the reception of the IMC report if they had published the decommissioning body's report earlier rather than leaving it to the same day and causing confusion?

Peter Hain: I do not agree with the latter point, but I very much accept the hon. Gentleman's first point. Some Sinn Fein leaders have said that the organisation is squeaky clean and some Unionists have said that there has been no change. Both statements are untrue. There has been huge change, but there is still too much local criminality, which we intend to stamp out.

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked

Engagements

David Jones: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 8 February.

Tony Blair: This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I will have further such meetings later today.

David Jones: Two weeks ago, the Prime Minister told the House that he would have to listen carefully to what the people were saying on the question of police restructuring. This week, the Government announced that they were pressing ahead with plans to amalgamate the Welsh police forces despite the intense opposition of Welsh police authorities. Just how loudly do the people of Wales have to shout before the Prime Minister starts to listen?

Tony Blair: Surely, as the hon. Gentleman knows, there is, in fact, a disagreement within Wales as to the right way to go. There are senior police officers who are saying precisely the opposite of what he is saying. Therefore, we must listen to the representations being made, but there are circumstances in which there are different representations being made and we obviously have to come to a decision. I know that he and some other Members of Parliament had a meeting with the Home Secretary earlier in the week, but we have put forward this option because there is strong support for it from within Wales.

Mohammad Sarwar: Does the Prime Minister agree that while we recognise and respect freedom of speech and expression, that does not extend to a right to insult, humiliate and hurt people, which is clearly what the irresponsible publication of the cartoons of the Prophet, peace be upon him, has done, causing deep offence to millions of Muslims around the world? Does my right hon. Friend further agree that people have the right to protest peacefully, but that those who advocate violence and condone barbaric acts such as 7/7 must be dealt with by the full severity of the law?

Tony Blair: I think that what my hon. Friend says about the protests against the cartoons being conducted peacefully is absolutely right. I also think that it is particularly important that he, as a leader from the Muslim community, is making it very clear that the vast majority of Muslims in this country completely abhor the type of protests that took place that resulted in violence and in people glorifying acts of murder and terrorism. That has no place in any part of our communitycertainly not in any respectable part of our community.

David Cameron: As the Prime Minister has just said, the demonstrations in London over the weekend caused widespread concern. Muslims, as he has also just said, contribute an enormous amount to this country and, for the overwhelming majority, Islam is a religion of peace. Does he agree that, in all of this, there is a danger that their voice will be drowned out?

Tony Blair: I hope very much that the voice of the moderate majority is not drowned out because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Sarwar) made clear, the fact is that the vast majority of people in the Muslim community and across the Muslim world totally abhor acts of terrorism and those who incite or glorify terrorism. It is important that we make it clear that we use the full force of the law against people who break the law, but remain united as a countryacross communities of all faithsin resisting terrorism wherever it rears its head.

David Cameron: On the specific point of policing that the Prime Minister just mentioned, we all agree that the existing laws on incitement must be enforced. Does he agree that while smart policing may mean holding back from arresting people on the spot, it must never mean turning a blind eye to those who incite violence, or perhaps even worse?

Tony Blair: No; I agree, of course, entirely. It is extremely important that the police use the powers available to them. One of the reasons for the legislation currently before the Houses of Parliament is precisely that it willl strengthen the law. It is important that we can agree on the measures that are necessary to do that because the law will be strengthened in very important ways. First, indirect encouragement to acts of terrorism will be made unlawful and glorification will be mentioned specifically as an example of indirect incitement to terrorism. Secondly, it was extremely importantI should be grateful if the right hon. Gentleman would look again at the Conservative party's position on thisthat the original provisions in the Bill allowed us to proscribe groups that glorified terrorism. Those provisions were removed from the legislation in the House of Lords. It is important that we send out a very strong signal that any group, or people, who glorify terrorism in any way at all will be committing a criminal offence and that those groups that rely on glorifying terrorism to attract recruits should not be able to operate in our society.

Peter Kilfoyle: The Secretary of State for Defence recently told the House that the deployment of our troops in Afghanistan would be in Helmand province. In the light of recent events, will the Prime Minister tell us whether our troops will now have a roving commission, firefighting around the whole of Afghanistan?

Tony Blair: No, of course they will not. However, in any situation, especially when other troops are under threat, as happened recently, I am sure that our troops would want to go to the help of their allies. The important thing is surely that we, together with the troops of many other countries, are in Afghanistan to help that country towards the democracy that its people want and to ensure that the Taliban or al-Qaeda cannot again use the country as a failed state for their own purposes. We can be not only immensely proud of the work that our troops do there, but immensely determined to ensure that they can carry on doing that work. I assure my hon. Friend that there is no intention that they should have a roving commission throughout Afghanistan, but if, as happened the other day, troops of another country working alongside us are under threat, of course our troops will want to go and help them.

Menzies Campbell: The Prime Minister will be aware that police mergers are controversial not just in Wales, but throughout the whole country. Will he tell us why the biggest change to policing in 40 years is being pushed through in a matter of a few months?

Tony Blair: The reason for the proposals, as I explained during Prime Minister's questions some time ago, is that after we commissioned a report from Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary into the whole issue, it came forward with proposals showing why the present configuration of forces was wrong. There is sometimes a notion when talking about this that the number of forces that we have at the momentjust over 40has somehow been the case for ever. Actually, 30 to 40 years ago, a similar exercise was undertaken involving substantial mergers. The question is what is the most effective form of policing. Since we got the report saying that the present configuration is not effective, surely it is sensible for us to look at how we can make it better.

Menzies Campbell: Apart from the issue of the loss of connection with local people, the Prime Minister will know that the Association of Police Authorities estimates the cost of the proposed mergers as something in excess of 500 million. What will that mean: higher council tax bills, or fewer police on the streets?

Tony Blair: It will mean neither, actually, because we do not accept that figure. As I have said, there are different views, including within the police service, but what is important is to get the most effective way of configuring local police forces, and community policing is best done at a community level. It is entirely consistent with proper community policing to have a proper strategic force at the right strategic level, and then to have greater devolution of power to community policing. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman looks at the history of police services in this country, he will see that there have been many changes over the years. Once those changes take effect, it is interesting how quickly the opposition dissipates.

Dawn Butler: In my constituency, we recently had a tragic murder when Tom ap Rhys Price was killed close to Kensal Green station, which was unstaffed. Will my right hon. Friend condemn the rail companies for not investing more of their profit into ensuring that stations are properly staffed? Will he also congratulate the Mayor of London on committing an extra 89 British Transport police officers to staff stations?

Tony Blair: It is important, as the Mayor indicated, not merely that we have more British Transport police, but that we increase the number of neighbourhood policing teams. My hon. Friend knows that those have been strengthened from four to six officers and rolled out across the whole of London. I shall certainly look carefully into the issue that she raises about that particular station.

David Cameron: The Prime Minister has said that every time he introduced a reform, he wished he had gone further. Why is it that on the biggest reform of this Parliamenteducationhe is going backwards?

Tony Blair: I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman says that. A couple of weeks ago he asked me whether I would undertake categorically to ensure that schools had the freedom to own their buildings, employ their own staff and develop their own culture. They will have those powers, and they will be in the education Bill. I thought that he now agreed with me that we do not want to return to selection.

David Cameron: I love it. One minute we have big concessions to win over Back Benchers; the next minute we have no changes at all. Instead of flip-flopping, why cannot the right hon. Gentleman get out and sell the reforms? [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Leader of the Opposition.

David Cameron: Whatever happened to the right hon. Gentleman leading his party, not following it? Whatever happened to no reverse gear? Whatever happened to the historic turning point? If he keeps turning, it is not going to be very historic.
	Given that the right hon. Gentleman has Opposition support, will he make it clear: no more concessions?

Tony Blair: I see that the right hon. Gentleman has raised the issue of flip-flopping. I have with me a leaflet that has just been put out in the Dunfermline and West Fife by-election with a letter from one David Cameron. It says:
	I'm a liberal Conservative.
	It also says:
	Issues that once divided Conservatives from Liberal Democrats are now issues where we both agree
	like Iraq. Is that the same man who two weeks ago told The Daily Telegraph:
	I am, and always have been, a Conservative to the core of my being?
	One week ago, he was the heir to new Labour; today he is a Liberal Conservative. No wonder he is against identity cards.

Hon. Members: More!

David Cameron: I love it[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

David Cameron: I love getting a lecture in consistency from a Prime Minister who spent all week in reverse gear. Perhaps he could have a word with the Chancellor, who has just endorsed a book that says Iraq was an unjust war. Is it not time that the Prime Minister faced down the rebels and did the right thing for teachers, parents and pupils? Why is he trying to appease those who do not want reform when he could be working with those who want it?

Tony Blair: I do not know about me facing anything down, but it is about time that the right hon. Gentleman faced the same way for more than a day at a time. The fact of the matter is that we will have those freedoms in schools but, yes, we will ensure that they cannot go back to academic selection. I thought that we both agreed on that. I hope that he will do that now, as well as reversing the following Conservative policies: the patient's passport; the foundation hospitals; the asylum quotas; section 28; the licensing lawsdoes he remember those?and opposition to antisocial behaviour. I hope that in respect of all those, and more, he will reverse the Conservative position, but in particular tell us now how much he regrets voting against the extra investment for   schools and hospitals. Once he has completed those U-turns, we will know where he standsbut he will not stand with any credibility anywhere. [Interruption].

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Colin Burgon: I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister shares the satisfaction that is felt by many on the Labour Benches about the shift to the left that has taken place in Latin America. To use a phrase, this is bringing Governments into power who will be in the interests of the many and not the few. Does my right hon. Friend agree with me that it would be bad news for all concerned if we allowed our policy towards those countries, especially Venezuela, to be shaped by a really right-wing US Republican agenda?

Tony Blair: Up to a point. It is rather important that the Government of Venezuela realise that if they want to be respected members of the international community, they should abide by the rules of the international community. I say with the greatest respect to the President of Venezuela that when he forms an alliance with Cuba, I would prefer to see Cuba a proper functioning democracy. I entirely understand the point that my hon. Friend is making, and I will obviously reflect on it carefully, but I have to say to him that the most important thing is that countries in south America and north America realise that they have much in common, much to gain from each other and much to gain from each other particularly through the principles of democracy.

Charles Hendry: Has the Prime Minister seen the Government's own figures, which show that 90 per cent. of prisoners have some form of mental health illness, and that more than 5,000 prisoners have a severe mental illness? Does he believe that prison is the right place to keep, treat and rehabilitate people with a mental health illness?

Tony Blair: I think that they have to be treated in the right way for them. They also have to be treated in a way that is conducive to public safety. The hon. Gentleman is entirely right in saying that many prisoners have severe mental health problems. Many prisoners have a series of problems to do with upbringing, drug abuse and so on. I hope he understands that there would be an immediate reaction the other way if we were releasing people from prison with severe mental health problems who could cause damage in the community.
	The point that the hon. Gentleman is making is absolutely right and we are acting upon it, to increase the help and support that we give to prisoners with mental health problems.

Anne Snelgrove: Would my right hon. Friend be interested to learn that councillors on Conservative-controlled Swindon borough council backed on-the-spot fines and antisocial behaviour orders recently? Does he agree that the measures in the respect action plan will improve the lives of hard-working Swindon families, and that it would be far better for the country if the Tories stopped saying one thing when in power and another in opposition?

Tony Blair: That is absolutely right, of course. I have to say in all fairness to the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) that although he was opposing the measures as a gimmick in the morning, by the evening he was supporting them.

James Arbuthnot: We do need to build new affordable housing to keep communities together, but does the Prime Minister accept that we have to have the infrastructure to support that housing first? Is he aware that in Fleet, where the Deputy Prime Minister has just imposed an extra 300 new houses, the schools are full, the primary care trust is in deficit and water levels are dangerously low?

Tony Blair: I agree entirely that it is important that we have the infrastructure spending that goes along with any increase in housing. That is precisely the reason for the large investment in our public services, both in health and education and elsewhere. Obviously I do not know the particular situation in Fleet but I am happy to write to the right hon. Gentleman about it.

Gordon Prentice: Why is it that so many influential people outside the House think that knighthoods and peerages can be bought by sponsoring city academies? Is it because six sponsors have been honoured so far? What about independent trust schools that are seeking partners in the private sector? What is in it for Tesco, B  Q, Burger King and Virgin Mobile?

Tony Blair: If my hon. Friend went and looked at the city academies, he would see that many schools that used to be hugely under-subscribed are now over-subscribed. He would see the children receiving a first-class education and the possibility and potential that they have as a result, so I hope that perhaps he would take a different view of city academies and their sponsors.

Angela Watkinson: The London borough of Havering has just received a comprehensive performance assessment of one star, despite receiving four, three and two stars for a range of services. Doesthe Prime Minister agree that giving a comprehensive performance assessment in accordance with the lowest score is not only unfair but does nothing to encourage local authorities to aspire to providing better services?

Tony Blair: I plainly do not know the reasons for that, so I will get in touch with the hon. Lady to give them to her. Obviously, the rating is made across the whole range of services, but I cannot comment on the individual case.

Mary Creagh: My right hon. Friend will be aware that this month is the 100th anniversary of the foundation of the parliamentary Labour party. [Hon. Members: Hurray.] The Labour pioneers who sat on these Benches dreamed of ending poverty and unemployment, clearing slum housing and providing decent health care and education for everyone, regardless of their income. One hundred years from now, what does my right hon. Friend believe our lasting achievements will be?

Tony Blair: I hope, at the moment, the increase in the number of people in work and, obviously, the huge investment in public services and the reduction in pensioner and child poverty. My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the 100-year centenary, and I hope those original 29 founders would be very happy to have a third-term Labour Government in place today. There were three great things on which they campaigned 100 years agofirst, the minimum wage, which we have delivered; secondly, home rule, which we have delivered; and, thirdly, prohibition, which we have not.

Nigel Dodds: Given the confirmation of continuing illegality, criminality, spying, racketeering and so on practised and sanctioned at the highest level by senior members of Sinn Fein-IRA, does the Prime MinisterI note that he is shaking his head, but it is in the report by the Independent Monitoring Commission, if he would read it instead of spinning itnot agree with his right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, who said that if
	organisations are not committed to a peaceful process and to democratic work, they should not be entitled to
	parliamentary
	allowances?[Official Report, 26 January 2006; Vol. 441, c. 1528.]
	That is especially the case when they do not come to the House and they do not do any work.

Tony Blair: I do not agree that I am unbalanced about the report. It is absolutely correct to draw attention to criminal activity, and we have made it clear that that is a significant problem. However, the IMC report also says:
	We are of the firm view that the present PIRA leadership has taken the strategic decision to end the armed campaign and pursue the political course which it has publicly articulated.
	If one is being fair and balanced, both things have to be put into the equation. The report goes on specifically to recommend the lifting of the financial sanctions that were imposed on Sinn Fein in March 2005, after a previous IMC report. The present report says that it is right to lift them, which is why we are acting as we are.

Mark Hendrick: May I ask my right hon. Friend to join me in celebrating the election to the House of Mr. John T. Macpherson, the first Labour MP for Preston, who, along with 28 others, set out a radical agenda for change in the 20th century? If those 29 MPs could be here today to see this radical agenda, they would be proud.

Tony Blair: I am sure that they would. My hon. Friend's predecessor had to wait rather a long time to see, from another place, a third-term Labour Government, but now that we have one, let us make him really proud and have a fourth-term one.

Tim Farron: Is the Prime Minister aware that the primary care trust proposes to close the mental health wards at Westmorland general hospital in Kendal in my constituency? Given that his Government have indeed put additional funding into the national health service, will he explain to my constituents why they are facing cuts in mental services in our area, and will he act swiftly to prevent those cuts from taking place?

Tony Blair: Again, I would have to know the reasons for the proposals. It is a matter for those in charge of the local health care system. The hon. Gentleman rightly drew attention to the fact that there has been a massive increase in spending. How that money is spent, however, must be a local decision. Again, in respect of the particular situation regarding mental health services in his constituency, I will have to write to him, but I am sure there are reasons why the proposals are being put forward.

Mike Hall: What does my right hon. Friend say to hon. Members who are happy to accept the protection of an ID card here in the Palace of Westminster, but are prepared to deny that protection to people outside?

Tony Blair: I hope that the Opposition and others will think again about the identity card. It is extremely important. As I have constantly said, we have the biometric technology. In any event, because of changes happening not just in this country but around the world, we have moved to biometric visas and biometric passports. With the new technology, therefore, and with the huge level of identity abuse in both the private and the public sector, it makes perfect sense to move towards identity cards. I have no doubt that in the end that is where the United Kingdom will go.

Michael Ancram: The Prime Minister opened his responses today, as he does each week, with the words,
	In addition to my duties in the House, I will have further such meetings later today.
	Will he list his duties in the House and say whether, by any chance, they include voting?

Tony Blair: Periodically is the answer to that. Since I know that accountability to Parliament is a hot Conservative topic now, I am sure the right hon. and learned Gentleman will have caught up with the fact that I am the first Prime Minister to appear in front of the Liaison Committee, and that if anyone looks at the number of statements I have made and the number of hours I have spent answering Prime Minister's questions, that compares extremely well with all my predecessors.

Dan Norris: Is it time for the more hysterical critics of the Licensing Act 2003 to eat humble pie?

Tony Blair: Perhaps I should touch wood at this point. It is important to emphasise that the Act was not just about greater flexibility in licensing. Additional powers were given to the police and local communities to make sure that those who abuse the licensing system are more severely dealt withfixed penalty notices, for example, for people who are drunk and disorderly, and the power that the police now have to close pubs or clubs where there are regular disturbances or fighting. Flexible licensing, balanced by those additional powers, was and has been shown to be the right thing to do.

Ben Wallace: Both the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly have said that they will not make ID cards a condition of delivering public services. If the Prime Minister pushes forward with his ID card scheme, is he not in danger of creating a two-tier Britain, where some citizens of these isles will not be required to carry an ID card and some citizens of England will?

Tony Blair: Precisely because we think it sensible for access to public services, we want the provisions to remain. The ability to check people's identity properly is of benefit to the user, never mind to the Government or state. I say to the hon. Gentleman and other Conservative Members that most people carry forms of identity in our society today. It is not a great deal to ask people to do, when the benefits of it are so very clear.

Keith Vaz: In his speech in Oxford last week, the Prime Minister pledged to continue the economic reform agenda in Europe. Given that Italy, France and Spain have achieved only three of the quantifiable benchmarks set at Lisbon, which is half of what we have achieved in the United Kingdom, what further steps does he propose to take to encourage our European Union colleagues to ensure that the vision set out at Lisbon to create the most dynamic economy in the world will be realised?

Tony Blair: The most important thing will arise in connection with the summit in March, which will be devoted particularly to the Lisbon agenda and to economic liberalisation, but there are two important issues before the European Parliament. One is to do with the services directive, and I hope we can get early progress on thatwithin the next few weeks, indeed. The second is in respect of the working time directive, as there is an increasing desire to make sure that we have sufficient flexibility in European labour markets. There will be changes as a result of Lisbon, but my hon. Friend is rightthere is a great deal more that we have to do.

Education White Paper

John Pugh: Whether he plans to meet the Association of School and College Leaders to discuss the education White Paper.

Tony Blair: I will be meeting Dr. John Dunford shortly.

John Pugh: Last month, the Association of School and College Leaders issued this press statement:
	we have had 20 Education Acts in 20 years. We do not need another one in 2006. Heads are fed up with being the guinea pigs in the government's education laboratory.
	Is there not a fairly obvious downside to permanent revolution and reform?

Tony Blair: Much the same thing was said about specialist schools when they were first introduced, but now more than half of comprehensives are specialist schools and their results are significantly better than those obtained by traditional comprehensives. The Liberal Democrats always oppose any reform, but a combination of investment and reform has delivered the best school results at 11, 16 and 18, which is why, 100 years on, people should keep voting Labour.

Tom Levitt: Derbyshire county council was the only county council to be classed as excellent in the recent assessment. People throughout Derbyshire welcome the greater assurance given this week on the continuing positive role for local authorities in delivering the excellence agenda in our schools. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that the Bill will be used to make sure that all local authorities are partners in providing excellence for all of our children?

Tony Blair: The fact is that many local authorities fulfil that role. What is important is that schools have the freedom to involve external partners and that local authorities concentrate on raising standards in schools. We have come an immense way in the past eight years, and there is no doubt about the improvement in schoolsin particular, the number of failing schools has been more than halved in the past few years. However, Labour Members will not rest while children still do not get the education that they need, which is why the programme of improvement through investment and reform will continue.

Point of Order

Dominic Grieve: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether you have received an application from the Prime Minister to come to this House to correct the record in respect of the answer that he gave to a question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) about the proscription in the Terrorism Bill of organisations that indirectly encourage terrorism. He told the House that the House of Lords had prevented the proscription of such organisations, but an immediate perusal of the Lords amendments shows that that is not the case. Proscription remains in the Bill, and indirect encouragement has been helpfully defined as the
	making of a statement describing terrorism in such a way that the listener would infer that he should emulate it.[Official Report, House of Lords, 17 January 2006; Vol. 677, c. 587.]
	In view of the fact that the House has been inadvertently misled, has any such application been made?

Mr. Speaker: I understand that the Lords amendments are returning to this House next week, which is when the hon. Gentleman should seek to set the record straight.

Local Government Referendums

Bob Russell: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require a local authority to hold a referendum about a matter of major local importance for which it is responsible if one tenth of its electorate demand the holding of such a referendum; and for connected purposes.
	There is already provision under section 116 of the Local Government Act 2003 for a local council to hold a referendum, but the decision on whether to do so rests with the local council concerned. Not surprisingly, few councils have chosen to hold one. The principle of local referendums is not an issue to be debated in connection with my Bill, nor do I wish to get drawn into the wider debate on referendums such as those on regional assemblies or the euro. Representative democracy has served us well. Without taking the route of referendums being part of the decision-making process, as in Switzerland, I believe that there are occasions when Governmentsin this case, local governmentneed to have a safety valve for the community to challenge what is being done in its name.
	My Bill would give the power of determination over a referendum to the local community. However, unlike a parish poll, as set out in the Local Government Act 1972, whereby as few as 10 people at a parish meeting can demand that one is held, my Bill has a very high threshold in order to deter frivolous actions or those on matters over which the local council has no responsibility. It would require a local authority to hold a referendum about a matter of major local importance for which it is responsible if one tenth of its electorate demand the holding of such a referendum. In the case of my own borough, that would require around 15,000 people on the electoral roll petitioning for a referendum. That 10 per cent requirement is double the 5 per cent which is all that is required to trigger a referendum to have an elected mayor as set out in the Local Government Act 2000.
	My Bill has been prompted by the arrogance of Conservative-run Colchester borough council and its contempt for the overwhelming majority of my constituents. The council wants to shut the town's bus station and build a loss-making 17.2 million contemporary visual arts facility, even though that is in clear breach of the council's own adopted borough plan. Furthermore, the council is having to make cuts in many other areas. This reveals an interesting choice of the ruling party's priorities, for the arts came 17th out of 18th in the council's recent survey of residents' priorities.
	Public opinion is clearly opposed to what the council is up to. That has been demonstrated by a petition signed by more than 15,000 people who want to keep the bus station and through newspaper polls and correspondence, and confirmed by my own random sample selection of names from the electoral roll. It is not in my interests to misread or misrepresent what my constituents are telling me. However, my efforts to ascertain the true sense of local opinion were challenged by the non-elected chairman of the Colchester local strategic partnership, who questioned the validity of my survey. She had attended a special council meeting to argue against a referendum, yet had the audacity to challenge the town's democratically elected Member of Parliament on a matter of local democracy. It is a funny old world.
	The most recent poll was organised last month by the Essex County Standard. It was good of the newspaper to do so, and it was intended for its readers. Regrettably, that phone poll was hijacked by those driving the art gallery project. Full-time staff at the town's existing publicly-funded art gallery sought to rig the vote by circulating by e-mail just the yes number to likely supporters. Two professors in the department of art history at the University of Essex also sought to influence the phone poll by e-mailing around to ask people to phone in. Is not that a misuse of public resources? Nevertheless, even their dubious antics were not enough to prevent a 3:1 vote against the council's proposals.
	At a meeting in the town last year, where there was no scope for any members of the public, let alone the town's MP, to question what we were being told, I challenged one of the Tory councillors, who just happened to have been my opponent at last May's general election, saying that what we were witnessing was not democratic. He replied: I am not a democrat. I am a Conservative. That just about sums it up. His words were duly reported in Colchester's Evening Gazette.
	On 22 November last year, Labour and Liberal Democrat borough councillors convened an extraordinary meeting of the council at which a motion was tabled calling for a referendum in accordance with section 116 of the Local Government Act 2003. The council's Conservative and independent councillors voted this down. Most of the Tory councillors represent the rural areas of the borough. The majority of the councillors in my Colchester town constituency are either Labour or Liberal Democrat. It is the people of the town who are most up in arms at what is happening, but the rural-based Tory councillors are calling all the shots. Only one of the eight cabinet members lives in the town.
	I believe that if a referendum was held, the people of Colchester would vote overwhelmingly against what the council is inflicting on the town, aided and abetted by quangos and othersgenerally those who do not live in the town, yet who are able to drive through an agenda that local people do not want. This is not democracy. It is not good enough to say, Oh well, the people can vote out the councillors at the next local elections. By then, a damaging, irreversible decision could have been made. The arrogance of power needs to be checked in such circumstances. My Bill would provide that check.
	Nobody in local government who is truly committed to democratic accountability and good governance will be opposed to my Bill. Only those who want to ride roughshod over the community and make decisions which they know are not in accordance with what residents support will hope that the intentions of my Bill do not materialise. I commend the Bill to the House.

Bernard Jenkin: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak, and I commend the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) for introducing his Bill. I have some problems, however, with the detail of the principle of the Bill. I do not know whether the threshold should be set in stone in the long title of the Bill. I am therefore happy to speak against the Bill.
	I also have some serious problems with the way in which the hon. Gentleman has presented the Bill. I cannot help feeling that the former Colchester councillor and Colchester mayor has forgotten that he is now a Member of Parliamenthe is not meant to be second-guessing the local authority, of which he used to be a member, on matters of such detail. The House has heardand is entitled to a broader explanationa lot of small-town politicking from him, which I fear does neither him nor the town of Colchester any credit, and under-sells what is a major project for the benefit of the people of Colchester.
	The visual arts facility to which the hon. Gentleman referred is a 17.2 million investment in a run-down area of Colchester, St. Botolph's. The bus station that he appears to celebrate as a great landmark of historical importance in Colchester will be replaced by a new bus station paid for by the developers. I do not therefore know why he is conducting such a campaign. He is sending out a negative signal about this positive project that will attract more than 120,000 visitors annually, directly create 33 full-time jobs, indirectly create 38 new full-time jobs, create 160 construction jobs during its 18-month construction period, and offer 28 new places for undergraduate and postgraduate students at Essex university. It will provide a vast new retail facility for Colchester350,000 sq ft of retail developmentas well as the brand new bus station, enhancement of the heritage area including the Roman wall around St. Botolph's priory[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman is muttering that this area is not in my constituency. I remind him that we share the borough of Colchester, and I believe that he has misused his position and these procedures to run a local vendetta into the national arena, against the interests of the people he seeks to represent. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Whatever happened, the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) was heard in silence, and the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) must also be heard in silence.

Bernard Jenkin: I am grateful, Mr. Speaker.
	In response to a parliamentary question, I found out how much public money the hon. Gentleman has wasted on his campaign. He made a vexatious complaint to the Audit Commission about some land transfers involved in the project, and alleged that there had been some dirty work at the crossroads and that somehow the taxpayer had been short-changed. The Audit Commission duly conducted an investigation at his behest. The investigation cost 20,000. Because the complaint was vexatious, of no merit whatever, that 20,000 has fallen to the council tax payers of Colchester to pay.
	The hon. Gentleman would do well to take a broader view of the interests of the people of Colchester, rather than using parliamentary procedures to conduct what amounts to a vendetta against a policy that, incidentally, Liberal Democrats on the borough council supported when they were in power.
	Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 23 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business), and agreed to.
	Bill ordered to be brought in by Bob Russell, Annette Brooke, David Taylor, Mr. David Drew, Mr. Mike Hancock, Mr. Michael Clapham, Dr. Ian Gibson, Mrs. Janet Dean, Paul Rowen, Mr. Phil Willis, Paul Holmes and Norman Lamb.

Local Government Referendums

Bob Russell accordingly presented a Bill to require a local authority to hold a referendum about a matter of major local importance for which it is responsible if one-tenth of its electorate demand the holding of such a referendum; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 17 March, and to be printed [Bill 127].

David Heath: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I listened carefully to the speech of the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin). He said that my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) had made a vexatious complaint. I believe that that has a specific meaning in law, and I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether it is a parliamentary term. I do not expect an immediate response, but may I ask you to look into the matter?

Mr. Speaker: Let me say this to the hon. Gentleman: I have heard nastier. What was said was in order.

Business of the House

Geoff Hoon: I beg to move,
	That, at this day's sitting, the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motions in the name of Mr Geoffrey Hoon relating to Opposition Parties (Financial Assistance) and Support for Members who have chosen not to take their seats not later than Six o'clock and such Questions shall include the Questions on any Amendments selected by the Speaker which may then be moved; proceedings may continue after the moment of interruption; and Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply.
	The motion is designed to facilitate today's business. It provides for the motions on financial assistance for Opposition parties and support for Members who have chosen not to take their seats to be considered together. The debate may continue until 6 pm, when the questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the motions, and on any amendments selected by you, Mr. Speaker, will be put.
	The House has already considered the principle of support for Members who have chosen not to take their seats on two occasions, in 2001 and again last year, when it agreed to suspend the allowances. Today we shall also debate a motion relating to financial assistance for Opposition parties. I do not intend to take up any time now in talking about the substance of the debate, and I hope that the House will agree to the motion swiftly, so that we can proceed to consider the important business before us.
	I commend the motion to the House.

Theresa May: I can relieve the House by saying that I have no intention of speaking at length, or indeed of opposing the proposal from the Leader of the House. I think that we have been allowed a reasonable amount of time for the debate. As many Members will wish to speak in that debate, I shall take up no more of the House's time.

David Heath: I am a little surprised at the attitude of the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May). This is House business, not party political business. There is every probability that every single Member may have strong opinions on such a contentious matter. We have heard no explanation of why the time that is normally allottedthe time before the point of interruptionis to be abbreviated.

Peter Robinson: If the hon. Gentleman recalls what was said during business questions, he will know precisely what the reason is: the Leader of the House wants to have his photograph taken. In fact, the motion is not intended to facilitate the business of the House; it is intended to facilitate the parliamentary Labour party.

David Heath: I was aware of that, but I did not imagine for a moment that, in fulfilling his duties to the House, the Leader of the House would allow a photographic opportunity for the Labour party to get in the way of the business of the House. Even if we assume that it would be possible for all the members of the Labour party to face in the same direction, that cannot be a reason for abbreviating the business.
	I do not want to take up too much time, but it seems to me that three important issues need to be debated, and that we shall need to hear explanations from Ministers. We shall clearly need to know why the allowances are to be resumed, and I have every expectation that that will form the main part of the debate. We shall also need a clear explanation of why it is felt necessary to backdate the allowances. I know that an amendment to that provision has not been selected, but Members on both sides of the House will clearly wish to explore the issue.
	A third aspect that I think will bear careful scrutiny is the proposal to provide funds for the parties that do not take part in our parliamentary business in support of what is described as their representational role. That is in sharp contradistinction to what is already in the Short money resolution of 1975, which clearly states
	that the expenses in respect of which assistance is claimed have been incurred exclusively in relation to that party's parliamentary business.
	This is a matter for the Leader of the House rather than the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, and I want to ensure that there is time for him to explain why the distinction exists between parliamentary business that applies to parties whose Members take their seats in the House and parliamentary business that applies to those whose Members choose not to do so, who apparently have carte blanche to spend money from public sources in different ways.
	It is important that we have long enough to ask whether the description of a representational role applies to parties in this House, because if it does, it will affect the way in which the money that is given to the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives is administered and used. I need an explanation without ambiguity of why there is a difference between the two resolutions, and of their implications in terms of what would be permissible for Sinn Fein under the new motion, were it to be passed. I also want to know the implications of the motion for parties that are already in receipt of Short money arising from the 1975 resolution.

Nicholas Winterton: I fully support what the hon. Gentleman is saying. Is there not a long-standing principle that all Members of the House are equal? If that is the case, why should the members of one particular party be treated differently from Members who are here under the banner of different parties?

David Heath: rose

Mr. Speaker: Order. To answer that intervention, the hon. Gentleman would have to go beyond the terms of this timetable motion.

David Heath: That was exactly the point that I was going to make, Mr. Speaker. It would be quite wrong to go into the content of the resolutions. My point is simply that the Government have, for reasons of their own, tabled a business motion that truncates our business and requires it to be completed before the time at which it would normally have to finish. They must have a reason for doing so, but they have not produced it in evidence to the House. I really cannot believe that it is something as silly as a photograph.

John Gummer: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us, if it is not a secret, whether any discussions have been held between the Government and the Liberal Democrats on whether this could be a consensus moment? That is an important aspect to the matter. Have there been any such discussions?

David Heath: I am not aware that there has been any debate with my party on the terms of the resolutions before us, and I imagine that that is also the case for Members on the Conservative Front Bench, although I obviously cannot speak for them.
	It is important that we have sufficient time to elucidate these matters. This is not a silly issue; it is a very serious one for many Members of the House. I ask the Leader of the House not to allow the opportunity to respond to this debate to pass by. If he can satisfy us on this matter, it could help our understanding of the Government's position later. He cannot just ignore the very important differences that I have highlighted; we need an explanation.

Douglas Hogg: I rise to support what has been said by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath). I approach this business motion with a great deal of hostility. We start with the proposition that this is a matter for the House. It raises important questions relating to the status, rights, benefits and privileges of Members of Parliament, and hon. Members should be entitled to debate them for as long as they wish, consistent with the proprieties of the House.
	A number of other fundamental questions will be raised in our debate today. Why does not Sinn Fein participate? Should taking the Oath be a precondition to participation? My view is that it should not. Should failure to participate be a disqualification? Again, my view is that it should not, because Members who are elected as Sinn Fein Members are elected by their electorate. If we believe in parliamentary democracy, we must recognise that Sinn Fein Members are as equally Members of the House as any one of us. If we deny that proposition, we are playing into the hands of over-mighty Government.
	We ought to be able to debate those questions at length, because they are a matter for the House of Commons. I agree that there are divided opinions on them, and that is all the more reason why we need time to discuss them. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack), most of all, disapproves of what I am saying on this point

Patrick Cormack: Totally.

Douglas Hogg: Indeed, he has said so on many occasions, and he may be right. However, that makes my point that we need to have extended time for debate. These motions are not about whether Sinn Fein has renounced violence in the Province, but about whether Members of the House of Commons should be treated differently because they have chosen not to participate in our proceedings. That is a quite different matter, and we need to debate it at length.

John Gummer: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the fact that there are considerable differences of opinion within parties as well as across the Floor of the House makes it even more important that, on a matter for the House, full time should be given to the debate, not least because my experience of the views of a number of Conservative Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack), is that they have quite a lot to say on these matters, and they ought to be given plenty of time in which to say it?

Douglas Hogg: My right hon. Friend is quite right. There is a diversity of opinion within the parties on both sides of the House. Furthermore, opinions change. I have long opposed the Oath, but I have previously voted for taking away the allowances from Sinn Fein Members. I now think that that was a mistake, and I should like the time to explain my reasons.

Patrick Cormack: While I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend on the narrow issue of this timetable motion, it is possible to make a convincing case against giving allowances to those Members in a very short compass, and he could do that.

Douglas Hogg: That might be true, but a lot of people want to participate in the debate. I have no doubt that my hon. Friend can wrap up his arguments extremely succinctly, but he is of course a very concise speaker. There are quite a few hon. Members of whom that cannot be said, and quite a lot of people wish to participate in the debate.

Daniel Kawczynski: I disagree with my right hon. and learned Friend, in that I am surprised that the Government are dragging this idea of giving Sinn Fein allowances through the House yet again, when international courts and courts in Northern Ireland have repeatedly stated that, under our democratic processes, Sinn Fein should not be given any allowances.

Douglas Hogg: I suspect, Mr. Speaker, that if I were to respond to my hon. Friend's point in detail, you would tell me that it was a matter for the substantive debate that is to come. He makes a perfectly legitimate point, but I would prefer to debate it in the substantive debate rather than during this debate on the timetable motion.
	This is a matter for the House, and we should therefore be very slow to impose a timetable. This contrasts ill with the position adopted by the late Mr. Robin Cook when we debated these matters in 2001. He made it plain at the time that the debate would be open-ended and that there would be a free vote. That is what we ought to be doing today, and I very much regret the fact that we are not. I suspect that the reason is related to the Labour party's internal jollifications, and that is pretty discreditable.

Ian Paisley: The motion has to do with the time that we shall be allowed to debate this very important matter. The police in Northern Ireland have stated:
	No paramilitary group has ceased its involvement in organised crime.
	Our country is in a very sad state, as right hon. and hon. Members on the Government Front Bench well know. They know that for every man, woman and child in Ulster, 80 from the economy is stolen by paramilitaries. Some 140 million a year goes into the pockets of the paramilitaries, and 245 million is lost each year as a result of fuel-laundering rackets. The latter problem is so great that one of the leading fuel companies, Shell, has pulled out of Northern Ireland. Moreover, 6 per cent. of all cigarettes sold in Northern Ireland are illegal; that 6 per cent. consists of imported and counterfeit cigarettes. Such illegal activity takes 12 billion cigarettes out of the economy every year.
	Those responsible for that drain on our economy are now going to get more money, not less, because the amount being paid to them is to be increased. We need time thoroughly to discuss this issue and to see where we are going. One hour is to be cut off the debate. Why can we not have the full time and conduct the debate in a reasonable way? [Interruption.] I do not care whether the Leader of the House wants his photo taken or not. He learned, along with me, that in Europe it is important to have one's photograph taken, but he is not in Europe now andthank Godnor am I; I am in the British House of Commons. We need time and that time should be given to us.

Nicholas Winterton: My intervention will be brief. On this specific issue, I support my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), and I also endorse the comments of the right hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley), who leads the Democratic Unionist party. Are the Government and the Leader of the House not treating this House with contempt? This important issue is not only a House matter but a constitutional matter, yet they are reducing the time for debate for purely party convenience. In my view, there should be no time limit at all. We should suspend the 7 o'clock rule today in order to debate this issue fully.

David Wilshire: I am following my hon. Friend's argument with great care. He has it in his power, if he can manage it, to ensure that the timetable does not apply today. The debate on the substantive motion has to finish at 6 o'clock and I believe, Mr. Speaker, that my hon. Friend could in fact to speak to the motion before us until 7 o'clock. Perhaps he would like to find that way out of the situation.

Nicholas Winterton: I listen with great care to what my hon. Friend says, but I suspect that although I may have the ability to speak until 7 o'clock, Mr. Speaker, neither you nor the House would wish me to do so.
	This is a matter of principle and I say to the Leader of the House that to make the speech that he has just made in justification of the business of the House motion is to treat this House with contempt.

David Gauke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way and for not speaking until 7 o'clock. Perhaps he can enlighten me on the following point. It is something of a mystery to me why the debate is to be curtailed at 6 o'clock. Does he think that the Leader of the House could have been somewhat clearer in giving the reason for doing so?

Nicholas Winterton: My hon. Friend is extremely shrewd, in that he has anticipated my next utterance. Will the Leader of the House, with whom I work relatively closely on the Modernisation Committee, do the House the honour of explaining precisely why he has tabled this motion, which limits debate to 6 o'clock, rather than the normal time of 7 o'clock?

Daniel Kawczynski: Before commenting on how long the debate should last, I am rather keen to know what your attitude is to this question, Mr. Speaker. I spent last night reading about the noble Baroness Boothroyd of Sandwell's opinion when she adjudicated on the same issue in 1996, and I am very keen to know what yours is before we carry on.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is a new Member and I should tell him that during debates, the Speaker does not have an attitude.

Nicholas Winterton: I should point out to my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) that I, Mr. Speaker, as a member of your Chairmen's Panel, would in no way seek to draw you into this matter, on which you have no opinion so long as the motion before us is in order with the Standing Orders of the House. I point out to my hon. Friend that sadly, it is in order.
	The Leader of the House should do the House the courtesy of giving us a full and appropriate explanation for this motion. As a long-serving Member, I take it and the main motions extremely seriously. I should point out, however, to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham that I fundamentally disagree with the view that he is going to take in discussing the main motions.

Nigel Dodds: The Leader of the House's failure to explain here today the reason for this motion is not the only example of contempt for the House; weor our party, at least, which is the fourth biggest in the House and the one most intimately interested in this motionwere not even shown the courtesy of being consulted through the usual channels. Does not that discourtesy also show contempt for the procedures of this House?

Nicholas Winterton: I agreereluctantly, in a way, because I have a regard for the Leader of the Housethat it was extremely discourteous not to consult the Democratic Unionist party; no doubt the official Unionist party also was not consulted. We heard from the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) that the Liberal Democrats were in no way consulted, and given that I have not had a nod or a wink from my party's Front Benchersthe shadow Leader of the House and the shadow Secretary of State for Northern IrelandI am assuming that we were not consulted, either.
	I tell the Leader of the House, who is a courteous, highly intelligent and articulate man, that the House would benefit from a real and full explanation of the reason for the motion and the time limit on debating what is a critical matter of principle. In my view, it is also a matter of constitutional importanceof importance to the future of this House and the way in which it operates.

Peter Robinson: I detected through my radar that the Leader of the House indicated earlier from a sedentary position that if we sat down, he would give a reason for the motion, but the reality is that the appropriate time to do so was when he opened the debate. Of course, there are two reasons why the Government want to spend no longer than is necessary on this debate. First, doing so is for their convenience. A photograph is to be taken to celebrate the Labour party's centenary

Patrick Cormack: Is it for their identity cards?

Peter Robinson: It is one of the rare occasions when they will all be facing in the same direction, and hopefully all smiling at the same time.
	The reality is that the Government do not want a long debate on these motions because they have struck a deal with Sinn Fein. I have in front of me a copy of the parliamentary Labour party briefing on these motions, which is very poor in terms not only of quantity but quality. I also have a copy of the Conservative party briefing, which is more substantial in both senses. The PLP briefing makes it clear that these motions arise from a deal that the Government have done with Sinn Fein-IRA. They did another deal with Sinn Fein-IRA on the on-the-runs legislation, and we all saw what happened to that. So it is not in the Government's interest to have a long period of embarrassment in the House.
	The other factor is that, uncharacteristically and unintentionally, the Leader of the House may have misled hon. Members when he said, in the very brief remarks with which he opened the debate, that the motion was designed to facilitate the House, when in fact it is to facilitate himself and his party colleagues. In addition, he said that the debate was to be truncated because we had gone over these matters before.
	That is not correct. One of the motions has been debated before in this House, but the other has never been debated here. The unique proposal is that a new fund should be set up that will be available exclusively to Sinn Fein-IRA. Other parties in the House will not enjoy the same freedom, when it comes to the expenditure involved, that Sinn Fein-IRA will have. That is a completely new subject for debate, and a major issue that we need time to discuss.
	I hope that the House recognises that a major constitutional issue is involved that we have never discussed before. We should be given the time to debate it properly.

Richard Shepherd: This House has become accustomed to being routinely guillotined. For the reasons that have been given, it is inappropriate in this case. The matter before the House determines the nature of membership of the House, and so affects all hon. Members. My hon. Friends are right to say that this is a constitutional matter and therefore significant.
	There is no reason for us to restrain our debate on the proposal. Each generation of hon. Members has a right to ascertain the reasoning and basis of its standing in this Chamber, and to claim the associated rights and revenues. That is why it is a constitutional issue. Moreover, the forthcoming debate is to be constrained by a motion tabled by the Government, not by the House or Back Benchers. Let us make no mistake: it is a motion tabled by the Executive.

Douglas Hogg: My hon. Friend makes an important point that he may want to emphasise. He spoke of the rights of each parliamentary generation. The Leader of the House mentioned the debates in 2001 and on 10 March 2005, but they took place in earlier Parliaments. Surely, this Parliament, sitting afresh, should have a full opportunity to consider these matters.

Richard Shepherd: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend. I said what I said about the motion and the guillotine with full intent. The Government have sought to change the culture of this House over three Parliaments. This House now routinely subscribes to the truncation of debate on matters that are for the House itself to decide. That is why I resolutely oppose the business motion, and I urge all hon. Members to do the same, for the sake of our standing. At the heart of the debate is the ability to determine whether a person elected by an electorate should receive the rights that go with that position.

Geoff Hoon: With the leave of the House, I shall respond briefly to the debate. In saying that I shall do so briefly, I mean no discourtesy to those hon. Members who have spoken, but I do note that they had difficulty in formulating their observations on the business motion. They have said that the issues involved are important, yet the longer they speak on the business motion, the less time is available for dealing with those important issues.
	The Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), devoted much of his contribution to the subject matter of the motions that are to follow, and not to the business motion. It is important that the House has sufficient time to debate those matters, and I shall not speak at length now. However, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) made it clear that she and her Front-Bench colleagues have judged that the business motion will allow sufficient time for debate of the important matters to come. That is also the view of the Government.
	The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton) speaks eloquently on questions of procedure from as far back on the Conservative Benches as one can get. He illustrated the sort of difficulty that might arise without a business motion such as this when he said that he believed that debate should continue indefinitely.
	I have had many opportunities to enjoy the delights of hearing the hon. Member for Macclesfield speak about matters of procedure. For those of us with a legal background and training, nothing could be more enjoyable, but the important thing about the debate to come is that the House will have an opportunity to debate the substantive motions.

David Heath: I want to put one point to the Leader of the House that I think is germane to the amount of time needed to debate the substantive motions. There is a proposal to give what for convenience I shall call Short money to Sinn Fein: does that imply that Sinn Fein Members will have a greater ability to spend that money than those others who receive Short money through the resolution of 1975? The debate will be truncated if they are not to have greater scope for spending, but it will be extended if they are to have greater licence. The answer to my question is crucial to our understanding of the matter.

Geoff Hoon: That is an important matter, and I shall deal with it when I open the debate on the substantive motions. However, to help the hon. Gentleman, I stress that proper restrictions will be placed on the spending of that money and that, even though the purposes are different, they will be wholly consistent with the restrictions currently attached to the expenditure of Short money. I am not suggesting for a moment that we are dealing with Short money, but the restrictions on how the proposed money is spent will be supervised by the House authorities in exactly the same way, and the proper safeguards will apply.

Frank Field: The reason that some of us are puzzled is that Short money is given to political parties for their functions at Westminster. As the hon. Members involved do not wish to appear here, why should they get Short money?

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are now getting into the merits of the argument, rather than the timetable motion.

Geoff Hoon: I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) can ask the same question during the debate on the substantive motions. The answer that I shall give him then will be the same as the one that I would have given him now.
	I recognise that this is important House business. I do not suggest that hon. Members should not take it seriously. I am sure that they will, but it is important that the main debate is allowed to take place and that we do not continue discussing the procedure motion.

Philip Hollobone: Reference has been made in the debate to the Leader of the House having his photograph taken later this evening. Does that have anything to do with the centenary of the parliamentary Labour party?

Geoff Hoon: I was asked at last week's business questions whether a great Labour party bash was scheduled for tonight. At the end of our proceedings today there will be an Adjournment debate that is concerned with the Labour party's 100th anniversary. I understand that a photograph will be takenbut also that the photographer involved has another engagement afterwards that Conservative Members are likely to attend. It would be unfair to use the word bash about that other event, but it is likely to take up the time of Opposition Members. The photographer will be busy this evening[Interruption.] I am sorry that some Opposition Members have not received an invitation to the Conservative party winter ball. I want to make it clear that I have not received one either.

Richard Shepherd: Of what concern is that to the House and its ability to debate a motion?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman makes a very good intervention. We must keep to the timetable motion.

Geoff Hoon: I accept entirely, Mr. Speaker, that I should have brought my remarks to a conclusion much earlier. I do so now.

Question put:
	The House divided: Ayes 285, Noes 104.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Opposition Parties (Financial Assistance)

Geoff Hoon: I beg to move,
	That, in the opinion of the House,
	(1) Financial assistance should be provided, with effect from 1st November 2005, to any opposition party represented by Members who have chosen not to take their seats and thus do not qualify to participate in the proceedings in Parliament, towards expenses wholly, exclusively and necessarily incurred for the employment of staff and related support to Members designated as that party's spokesmen in relation to the party's representative business.
	(2) The amount of financial assistance payable to a party under this Resolution shall be calculated and paid by analogy with sub-paragraphs 1(1) to (6) and (8) and 2(1) to (5) of the Resolution of the House of 26th May 1999.
	(3) As soon as practicable, but no later than nine months after 31st March each year, a party claiming financial assistance under this resolution shall furnish the Accounting Officer of the House with the certificate of an independent professional auditor, in a form determined by the Accounting Officer, to the effect that all expenses in respect of which the party received financial assistance during the period ending with that day were incurred exclusively in accordance with paragraph (1) of this resolution.
	(4) If an audit certificate under paragraph (3) above has not been furnished within the time specified no further financial assistance under this resolution shall be paid until such a certificate is so furnished.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the motion on support for Members who have chosen not to take their seats:
	That the Resolution of the House of 10th March 2005 relating to Support for Members who have chosen not to take their Seats be amended by substituting for the words 'a period of suspension of one year commencing on 1st April' the words 'the period 1st April 2005 to 31st October'.

Geoff Hoon: The motions are designed to achieve two purposes: to recognise how far IRA and Sinn Fein have moved, and to encourage further progress from them.
	Significant changes have been made by the IRA, including and since its statement on 28 July 2005 that it had
	formally ordered the end to the armed campaign
	and on 26 September 2005 that
	the process of putting arms beyond use has been completed.
	This debate is in recognition and further encouragement of the republican movement's adoption of the political path. The first motion would, therefore, lift the suspension on Sinn Fein's entitlement to Westminster allowances imposed by the House on 10 March last year.
	I turn to the detail. The motion to restore Westminster allowances would have the effect of ending, from 1 November 2005, the suspension of parliamentary allowances for Sinn Fein. The House will recall that the principle of those allowances was debated at great length on 18 December 2001. The suspension, approved on 10 March last year, was a measure of the disapproval the House felt over the IRA's role in the Northern bank robbery in December 2004 and the murder of Robert McCartney a month later.
	In considering the motion, the House will note that the Independent Monitoring Commission recommended ending financial sanctions against Sinn Fein in the light of the closing down of paramilitary activity and an end to IRA bank robberies and murdersthe significant changes that the commission's report records. The parliamentary allowances for Sinn Fein were suspended because the process of democratic development by the republican movement had slipped backwards. It is clear from the Independent Monitoring Commission and the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning reports last week that the republican movement is moving to a reliance on exclusively peaceful and democratic means. That process is more advanced than when the allowances were first granted to Sinn Fein Members of Parliament in 2001.

William McCrea: How much of the millions of pounds taken in the bank robbery has been handed back by Sinn Fein-IRA, or are they still enjoying the proceeds of that crime? Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House about how the McCartney family has had to move from Short Strand since the murder, and about the continuing intimidation of the family by the Provisional IRA?

Geoff Hoon: I cannot answer the hon. Gentleman's first question. The police investigations continue and it is important that the police can pursue their investigations without the type of political observation that I might be tempted to make. On the hon. Gentleman's second question, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has recently met the McCartney family. He is in a better position than I am to deal with those issues, and I am sure that he will give way to the hon. Gentleman later in the debate if further detail is required.

Peter Robinson: The right hon. Gentleman referred to decommissioning. MI5 and the Police Service of Northern Ireland have passed on intelligence to the IMC and the IICD indicating that IRA is still holding on to weapons. The IRA says that it is not. Who does the Leader of the House believe?

Geoff Hoon: I have spent many years reading and dealing with intelligence and I learned never to comment on such matters, so I shall not break the habits of a previous career today.

David Gauke: The right hon. Gentleman says that he cannot comment on the McCartney case and the bank robbery, and although I understand the difficulties of doing so, does he not accept that they are highly relevant to the nature of the Provisional IRA? Does he accept that the IMC stated that members of the IRA are still
	heavily involved in serious organised crime?
	Given the intrinsic links between Sinn Fein and IRAif they are not indeed one bodyhe must recognise that Sinn Fein is not a party that it is appropriate to reward as he proposes.

Geoff Hoon: I realise that the hon. Gentleman sincerely holds a view that is different from mine and that of other Members. However, the difficulty with his question is that the report recommends something that he opposes, somehow by reference to the report. He cannot make selective quotations from the report without taking the document as a whole. The report recommends precisely that suspension should be lifted, and if he had mentioned that in his question, I might have been able to have a more interesting debate with him. He really cannot select particular quotations to support his particular point of view unless he deals with the report as a whole.

Lady Hermon: It would be helpful if the Leader of the House could clear up a small but significant matter. Was it not the Prime Minister who agreed with Sinn Fein the restoration of its allowances and/or the new development of the introduction of Short money, before the IRA statement of 28 July?

Geoff Hoon: The reason why the House is holding this debate is because these matters are rightly and properly for the House. No one, even my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, is in a position to take such decisions on behalf of the House. That is why we are holding debates and discussions. It is important that the House should do so, and that it should reach a conclusion.

Theresa May: The right hon. Gentleman refers to the IMC report in response to the intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Gauke). Does he not accept that, certainly when the IMC recommended the suspension of allowances, it was referring specifically and only to allowances relating to the Stormont Assembly, not to the Westminster Parliament? Therefore, the implication in recommending that those allowances be reinstated is that it is also referring only to allowances in Stormont, not here in Westminister.

Geoff Hoon: That is not an unfair observationI recognise that that is a matter for discussion and debatebut I draw the right hon. Lady's attention to page 32 of the IMC report, where she will find her answer. This is a matter for the House; it is an issue that the House must decide.

Daniel Kawczynski: Will the Leader of the House give way?

Geoff Hoon: If the hon. Gentleman will just keep calm, I will give way in a moment, but I cannot give way to him until I have tried to deal with the previous question, and I am trying to do so. What is important is that we look at the evidence available from independent reports and reach a proper conclusion. That is the subject of the debate, and we must continue the debate to consider these important issues.

Kate Hoey: Will the Leader of the House make it clear whether this is a free vote across Government, or is it a payroll vote, with hon. Members being asked to vote in a certain way? It is clear that the IMC may have suggested the restoration of allowances in Stormont. Where does the Short money suggestion come from? Who introduced that idea? Was it the Prime Minister in cahoots with Gerry Adams?

Geoff Hoon: I will deal with the second point in a few moments, once I reach that part of my remarks, but my hon. Friend will recall from her time in ministerial office that certain obligations follow from accepting ministerial office. Those obligations apply to all Government policy, and that is no different in relation to this matter.

Paul Goodman: The essence of the right hon. Gentleman's argument is that Sinn Fein is making progress. Is not the problem that that is exactly what was said just before the Northern bank robbery? Since, as he says, this is a matter for the House, what assurance can he give that even now, Sinn Fein-IRA are not planning a similar outrage?

Geoff Hoon: No one can give absolute assurances of that kind, but

Geoffrey Cox: Then why are you doing it?

Geoff Hoon: The hon. Gentleman asks that from a sedentary position. The answer, of course, is that we want to see progress. If we simply waited for every last dot and comma, there would be no progress. I am not suggesting that the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Goodman) wants to frustrate progressI am sure that he sincerely wants to see a successful peace process in Northern Irelandbut inevitably, as I will make clear during my remarks later, we will always have to take some risks in relation to securing that successful peace process. All I ask him is simply to reflect on whether he really believes that we should sit back and do nothing, perhaps allowing the prospect of peace to fade and fail, or whether we should allow this opportunity to encourage Sinn Fein along a permanent path of political process towards peace? That is the issue that he and other right hon. and hon. Members must deal with.

Daniel Kawczynski: Will the Leader of the House give way?

Geoff Hoon: If I give way to the hon. Gentleman, perhaps he will calm down.

Daniel Kawczynski: I feel very calm actually, but I also feel passionately that this is something on which to listen to the Speaker. What advice has the Leader of the House had from Mr. Speaker in this matter? When Labour first came to power in 1997, the former Speaker, Baroness Boothroyd of Sandwell, was the one who adjudicated in this matter, and her opinion was vindicated both by courts in Northern Ireland and by the European Court of Justice. Why is the right hon. Gentleman not listening to those testaments in the courts and to Baroness Boothroyd of Sandwell?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must tell the hon. Gentleman that it would be incorrect to seek to draw the Speaker into a debate. This matter is before the House for all hon. Members to make a decision. As I believe Mr. Speaker ruled during an earlier intervention, that is the position, and it remains so.

Geoff Hoon: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for that guidance, but if I may, without in any way intruding on your observations, I can help the hon. Gentleman to an extent. I have read the previous observations of the noble Baroness, and, indeed, those that Mr. Speaker set out to the House and published in Hansard, which are available to all right hon. and hon. Members to read for themselves. Again, I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that it might be appropriate for him to read all the statements made by distinguished Speakers, not simply to rely on any one, especially given the passage of time since that was made.

Frank Field: As I have given my right hon. Friend notice of this question, may I perhaps pose it differently? What is new about today's debate is that we are extending moneys still further to Sinn Fein-IRA, and what we are very anxious to learn from my right hon. Friend is on what grounds we have changed giving Short money to parties carrying out responsibilities here to giving it to a party that does not wish to take the oath or ever appear here?

Geoff Hoon: My right hon. Friend should be assured that I am anxious to deal with that, but I have not yet got to that point, and I will certainly give way to him again in due course.

Jeremy Corbyn: Does the Leader of the House not acceptperhaps he could tell us a bit more about thisthat there is a perfectly good democratic argument for restoring the allowance and providing an extra allowance for research, back-up and so on, so that Sinn Fein can represent its constituents to the many Government agencies, as it must do, and that that also encourages people who support Sinn Fein to wish to take part in the democratic process, rather than being excluded from it?

Geoff Hoon: I hope that my hon. Friend will accept that, given the occasions in the past on which we have had exchanges in the House, it is a rare and wonderful pleasure for me to agree with him. He makes a very powerful point that should be properly considered by the hon. Members who are likely to participate in the debate.

Patrick Cormack: Does the Leader of House agree that Danegeld is normally paid to Governments, not by Governments?

Geoff Hoon: I am not going to debate mediaeval history with the hon. Gentlemanat least, not yet.

Douglas Hogg: The Leader of the House has opened up the question of Short moneyI know that he will deal with it in greater detail in a momentbut the truth is that we are now extending Short money to Sinn Fein in respect of its representative business, rather than its parliamentary business. Does he agree that it would be unfair not to extend the same rule to the other parties, which participate, so that they could use Short money for representative as well as parliamentary business? Otherwise, they might be at a disadvantage compared with Sinn Fein where a competition occurs between those parties.

Geoff Hoon: The right hon. and learned Gentleman makes an important point, which I hope to deal with to his satisfaction in due course, but we should debate that part of the issue later.

Iris Robinson: I hope that the Leader of the House will accept that after his comments about all this being for the good of peace, absolute and utter despair will go around our Province, Northern Ireland, especially among the victims and those who have suffered at the hands of Sinn Fein-IRA. After the La Mon House hotel bombing, 12 people died, and one women's only childher 25-year-old daughterwas one of the victims, along with the daughter's 25-year-old husband. That mother was offered 300 for the loss of that child. For many years we fought with the Community Relations Council to get money to put in a stained-glass window to honour the victims who were murdered so horrendously. All we got was a paltry 3,000. Can the Leader of the House now go over to Northern Ireland, face the victims and tell them that violence does not pay?

Geoff Hoon: I have had the opportunity to meet a number of the victims of violence in Northern Ireland, many of whom, inevitably, were associated with Her Majesty's armed forces, during the time that I was Secretary of State for Defence. In no way do I minimise the loss, the suffering and the tragedies caused to families in Northern Ireland, and I do not challenge the hon. Lady's interpretation of those events. All I can say is that in my time visiting Northern Ireland, I have heard from all sides of the community an overwhelming desire to see an end to the violence and to see a peaceful path for the people of Northern Ireland. It seems to me that it is necessary for us to take appropriate steps in the hope of securing that.
	I simply ask all hon. Members to consider this. If we do not take this step, and the peace process stalls and fails and violence returns, what will have been achieved? What is the danger and risk about the process that we are embarked upon that causes so much difficulty for right hon. and hon. Members?

David Lidington: May I ask the Leader of the House to reflect carefully on what he has just said? We have heard repeatedly, and taken in good faith, from the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and various commissions, the idea that we should take seriously the pledges made by the republican movement last year that it was putting violence behind it for good. Surely the right hon. Gentleman is not saying that this grant of some thousands of pounds is what will determine whether violence returns. That is a disgraceful way to conduct this matter.

Geoff Hoon: I was not saying that for a moment. If those on the Opposition Front Bench insist on making such observations, we will necessarily have some difficulty in allowing this debate to continue.
	I was making it clear that there are always, in these processes, risks and difficulties. All that I am suggesting is that I cannot see why this particular decision is necessarily going to cause any undue difficulty for the people of Northern Ireland in the way in which we take these matters forward. That is something that we are all agreed upon. We all want to see peace in Northern Ireland, and that is why it is important that we take appropriate steps to assist in that process.

Theresa May: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his courtesy in giving way again. He stands here leading the debate as Leader of the House and not as the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. I have listened carefully to his remarks, and so far they have nearly all been about the peace process in Northern Ireland and the relationships between the different political parties and the Government. Is he going to make an argument for the Government motions based on their relevance to Members of the House and the business of the House? That is his duty.

Geoff Hoon: I agree with that entirely. In due course I will do that.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: I am sure that the Leader of the House is totally sincere in wanting to take the House with him. The difficulty is the constant reiteration of the sort of faintly blackmailing suggestion that unless the motions go through, the House will be messing up the peace process. What we are talking about is much wider than that. We are actually talking about the way in which the United Kingdom pays for the duties and responsibilities of people who ought to be appearing in this Parliament before they are entitled to its full support.

Geoff Hoon: I do not disagree with that. That is why the eighth report of the Independent Monitoring Commission says that it is now an appropriate point at which to lift the suspension of Sinn Fein parliamentary allowances.

David Simpson: Does the Leader of the House not realise that it does not matter how much money the Government throw at Sinn Fein-IRA, because that will never ever quench the thirst for hatred that Sinn Fein-IRA have for the British establishment in Northern Ireland? Gerry Adams said:
	There will never, ever be Sinn Fein MPs sitting in the British houses of Parliament.

Geoff Hoon: Again, I think it is important that we accept the views of independent organisations. I do not have the hon. Gentleman's experience of Northern Ireland. I have been a visitor there, but I am not pretending that I can substitute my judgment for his. All I say is that independent voices have reached a different conclusion from the one that he has reached, and it is important that we in the Government are guided by them.

Nigel Dodds: Is it not a fact that the Government announced the restoration of allowances to Sinn Fein before the IMC produced the report? They announced it in October and said that they would bring a motion to the House, at a time when the IMC had not made a recommendation. Indeed, the Government kept allowances for the Progressive Unionist party at the time that the IMC said that that party should not get the money. The Leader of the House is praying in aid independent reports, when the Government took this step in advance of any recommendation at all from the IMC.

Geoff Hoon: I have already made it clear to the House that it is not a matter for the Government to decide; it is a matter for the House. The timing of this debate was arranged after the report was available, so that we can discuss these issues properly.

Jeffrey M Donaldson: Which independent body or independent individual has recommended that Sinn Fein receive Short money from the House? I am not aware of any such recommendation. Will the right hon. Gentleman give us the background to the proposal and tell us why the Government have proposed it now?

Geoff Hoon: I should not have given way to the hon. Gentleman. I thought that he was going to intervene on the previous point, but he did not. I shall deal with his point in a few moments.

David Hamilton: Some Labour Members take the view that it is fine to be elected on the platform that one will not take the seat. People are entitled to do that and electors can elect representatives who will do that. However, we are discussing people who are elected, who are paid to work for their constituents in their constituencies but who do not work in this place. If someone is elected to this place, surely it is right that they take their seat in the House before they receive any money. It is unfair to suggest that that is an argument against the peace process. We want peace as much as anyone else.

Geoff Hoon: Again, I will not quibble with the detail of my hon. Friend's observation. In fact, Members who do not take their seats do not receive a salary. In any event, the details were considered at great length in 2001, and what was decided last year was a suspension. It was not a vote to say that the allowances would never again be paid. Today's debate is therefore about whether it is now an appropriate time, in the light of the IMC's report, to end that suspension. The issues of principle that my hon. Friend rightly raises have been resolved.

Lembit �pik: I have listened with great interest to the right hon. Gentleman and he will know that I am sympathetic to the Government's efforts to try to secure lasting peace in Northern Ireland. However, it is important for me and my hon. Friends to hear, first, the rationale for restoring the previously paid allowances to Sinn Fein on the basis of the IMC report and, secondly, to understand why, in principle, what we informally call Short money is to be paid. He must make sure that it does not sound like blackmail or some kind of a bribe. If he does, I fear that he will turn off those of us who are very sympathetic to what the Government want to do.

Geoff Hoon: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. If I can make progress now, I hope to satisfy his concerns.

Rosie Cooper: We all want a lasting peace process and, in taking part in the debate, I want to do my best to bind Sinn Fein further into the democratic process and to the House. I do not want it to be blackmailed; I want it to be bound into this place and its processes.
	I have been associated with Northern Ireland since I was a child and I can tell the House that, when I was growing up, I heard the word never many times but I have seen it reversed so often. This is just another step along the way.

Geoff Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I will allow her words to speak for themselves.
	May I deal first with the question of suspension? I have made it clear that we are debating the restoration of allowances, having previously suspended them. May I make it clear to the House that I am confident that it will have no hesitation in suspending those allowances again should there be a need to do so?
	It is perhaps helpful to reflect, however, on other developments, including the decommissioning of IRA weapons and the publication of independent reports verifying these events. This has continued a positive trend that is fundamental to the Northern Ireland peace process. The reports by the IMC in October and last week show that the IRA has taken significant steps and is making a transition that we all want to see. No one is suggesting that this is a picture of perfection. There are still reports of localised criminality involving individual members of the IRA, but it is a sea change from a year ago let alone five, 10, 20 or, indeed, 30 years ago.
	The conclusions of last week's Independent Monitoring Commission report stated:
	we have no doubt the
	Provisional IRA,
	uniquely among paramilitary organisations, has taken the strategic decision to eschew terrorism and pursue a political path.
	The House has debated on countless occasions over the past three decades IRA terrorism and atrocities and the destabilising effect on Northern Ireland politics of its attachment to arms and terrorism.
	The motion on financial assistance would make available to parties with Members who had not taken their seats an allowance for the purpose of a party's representative business. It is intended to recognise and further encourage the republican movement along the political path. The motion is a further recognition of the historic changes that the IRA and Sinn Fein have made. I hope that it will bolster the process of democratisation, stability and, more importantly, lasting peace in Northern Ireland.
	I recognise that the Independent Monitoring Commission made no recommendation on the motionnor would that have been appropriate. I also recognise that some hon. Members will find it difficult to provide financial assistance for Sinn Fein. However, we have to make a judgment about what is best for Northern Ireland, the peace process and, more importantly, the people of Northern Ireland.

Ben Wallace: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Geoff Hoon: I will give way in a moment.
	The Government's aim today is to encourage Sinn Fein MPs to play the fullest role in democratically representing their constituents and to support the republican movement as a whole along a democratic path. The motion would provide Sinn Fein with a maximum of 84,000 a year, together with a small amount of about 2,000 a year for travelling expenses, from 1 November 2005. That will be subject to strict controls. Sinn Fein will have to furnish the House accounting officer with a certificate from an independent auditor to the effect that the expenses claimed are within the terms of the resolution[Laughter.] I am sorry that hon. Members take that view because the same control system applies to Short money and the same maximum amount is payable as under that scheme.
	Under the motion, financial assistance would be made available for activities related to those that would normally attract Short money. Short money, as the House will be aware, is payable for research associated with Front-Bench duties, developing and communicating alternative policies and shadowing the Government. Financial assistance would be available for related activities conducted by Sinn Fein, such as the employment of a researcher to assist the representative business of a spokesman, and the costs of relevant equipment and travel costs for spokesmen engaged in representative business.

Andrew MacKinlay: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Geoff Hoon: In a second.
	Crucially, certain activities will specifically not attract financial assistance. Those include political campaigning and fundraising, membership campaigns, advertising, personal or private business and constituency business.

Frank Field: The Leader of the House will realise that to some extent we heard this speech some years ago. When we extended our allowances to people who had not come to the House to be full Members, we were told that their behaviour would change, but nothing has changed in that respect. Has Sinn Fein given the Government any indication of how its behaviour will change as a result of being given Short money?

Geoff Hoon: My right hon. Friend addresses an issue that is central to the debate. The IRA has made an historic statement. Although right hon. and hon. Members might not accept it, it is a significant statement in the long and drawn-out tragedy for Northern Ireland and its people. There are now independent voices that have confirmed the statement and said it is verifiable that the IRA has abandoned terrorist activity. When those two facts are taken together, they provide hon. Members with a powerful argument that we should ignore at our peril.

Frank Field: I, for one, am grateful for the statements that Sinn Fein-IRA have made and hope that the changes are as profound as the Leader of the House suggests, because if that is so it will be for the good of all. However, saying that a party that does not appear in the House should receive Short money is totally different. We welcome the statement that Sinn Fein has made, but Short money is specifically paid to support functions carried out in the Chamber by members of parties when representing major policies. Surely there is a difference between that and giving commitments not to use violence.

Geoff Hoon: I accept that there is a distinction to be drawn, and we are not granting Short money precisely for the reasons that my right hon. Friend makes clear. The motion refers to the work of a political party in its representative capacity, which is what we are debating.

Several hon. Members: rose

Geoff Hoon: I will try to give way to as many hon. Members as possible, but I will also try to answer their questions, which is what I am attempting to do.
	It is important to realise that while there is a responsibility on the IRA, as part of the republican movement, to continue on the path it has set out, we can encourage it by taking such decisions. We can support the process by realising that there are circumstances in which political parties have representative functions over and above the individual functions of members of those parties who happen to have been elected to the House and other democratic bodies.

Theresa May: I am extremely grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way to me a third time. He consistently refers back to the phrase representative business and differentiates Short money from the money that will be available for such business. He has indicated several activities for which that money could not be paid. Will he now give the House a definition of representative business?

Geoff Hoon: I indicated the kinds of things for which the money could be available. I said that it might be used to fund a researcher, or to purchase equipment to support the representative capacity of a political party. However, as the right hon. Lady will realise, this is not one of those issues that can be precisely defined[Hon. Members: Ah.] The rules of the House cover the way in which Short money is spent and the motion was drafted closely to reflect those arrangements. Of course, Short money is subject to rigorous financial accounting, and the arrangements under the motion will be subject to rigorous financial accounting by the House authorities in exactly the same way. It is not entirely fair or right for Opposition Members to find the matter a cause of great entertainment because when they spend Short money they are subject to precisely the same accounting rules that apply to the allowance.

David Heath: The Leader of the House will understand that we are talking about not accounting rules but the areas of activity for which the money could be used. For the avoidance of doubt, will he make it absolutely clear that Sinn Fein will not be able to use the money for any activities or classes of activities that the Conservative party or Liberal Democrats would not be permitted to undertake when in receipt of Short money?

Geoff Hoon: That is absolutely and precisely the case. It is important that that is well understood, which is why I make a precise analogy between the way in which Short money allowances are supervised and the way in which the new allowance will similarly be supervised.

Douglas Hogg: The House as a whole will welcome that assurance. Surely the money will not be confined to supporting parliamentary business. When we examine the motion, we must be careful to ensure that we do not find that Sinn Fein's receipt of representative money puts it in a better position than other parties that, on the face of it, have their money confined to supporting parliamentary business.

Geoff Hoon: The right hon. and learned Gentleman makes an extremely good point and I agree with him. It is important that the rules are properly supervised and that there are strict accounting standards, and I assure him that that will be the position.

Mark Durkan: Is the Leader of the House aware that several comments have been made in the past about various Sinn Fein returns to the Electoral Commission? Those excellent works of fiction have gone completely unchallenged despite the known facts about Sinn Fein's election expenditure, so it is hard to take seriously his assurances about scrutiny. Does he realise that he is talking in riddles by saying that the money is not Short money and then that it isthat it is the same and is not the same? Is it not the case that I will be unable to spend Short money on activities in my constituency, but that Sinn Fein will be able to spend its representation money on activities in my constituency against me?

Geoff Hoon: That is not the position. We must draw a clear distinction between the two motions. One deals with the restoration of parliamentary allowances, which clearly would allow right hon. and hon. Members to spend the allowances in their constituencies in support of their activities as individual Members of Parliament, as against money that would be, and is, available to political parties to support their representative activities. That is why the motion is drafted in the way it is.

Lembit �pik: This is a key point, because we need clarity. We understand that Short money relates to activities conducted within the House. In the right hon. Gentleman's response to my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), it sounded as though he was taking that money out of the House. Short money is named after a person. Is this money, which we might call Hoon money, connected in the same way to the House, or is it money that can be spent outside the House, as the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) suggested?

Geoff Hoon: I made it clear that the money would not be spent in support of individual Members in their constituencies, but it is clear that political parties have representative activities. Perhaps I can give one illustration of that. Sinn Fein may choose to employ a spokesman in Westminster to speak on behalf of the party in discussions that take place in and around Parliament. That is a matter for Sinn Fein, and we have given it access to facilities here. It is clearly a representative function of a political party; it is not the kind of activity that would allow money to be spent in an individual Member's constituency. However, it would provide the kind of support to representative activities of a political party that are already covered by the Short money that is made available to other political parties.

Lembit �pik: The right hon. Gentleman said that there is no opportunity to use the Hoon money in any way except for those purposes for which Short money is currently provided. Does he mean that to the letter of the law as it applies to Short money? If so, it clarifies responses to earlier questions, but it may be slightly different from the impression he gave in a previous answer.

Geoff Hoon: I gave an unequivocal answer and I do not retreat from it. It is important to make a clear distinction. This is money that is available and wholly consistent with the rules that currently cover the payment of Short money as far as other political parties are concerned.

Ian Paisley: Surely the Leader of the House should be influenced by the fact that the leader of the Social Democratic and Labour party said what he did and that Unionist parties are saying the same thing. Surely he must understand that he will put all the other parties that have forsworn terrorism in a difficult position. The advantage will go to the paramilitary groups because they can cook the books and nothing will be done about it. If we are going to have an audit, let us see the Government auditor doing something and taking them to the courts. We are still to see that. How can we trust for the future what has not been done in the past?

Geoff Hoon: I made it clear that this is a matter for the House and its audit, not for the Government. As I made clear, the Government have a view. We believe that the proposal is the right way forward, but it is a matter absolutely for the House to decide, and it will have to do that in due course.

Douglas Hogg: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Perhaps we can have some advice from the Chair. The motion apparently extends what is called Short money to representative business. I am not clear whether the motion standing by itself has that effect, or whether there needs to be a further and substantive motion, spelling out the terms and conditions on which Short money is payable to Sinn Fein before such money becomes payable. The House needs to know whether there is to be a further resolution or whether this resolution is sufficient to make payment due.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order for the Chair. What is on the Order Paper, and the reasoning behind it, is for the proposer of the motion to explain and to be questioned about, which has been happening for the past 42 minutes. It is purely a matter of debate and then decision for individual Members of the House.

Frank Field: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Your advice is needed as we just learned from the Leader of the House that if we pass the motion, we will change the nature of Short money, because we have been told that it can now be spent in a way that representative money can be spent. Surely the Government should introduce a substantive motion on changing Short money that incorporates allowing Sinn Fein to claim that money, rather than changing its nature by extending it to Sinn Fein.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Interpretation of the motion is not for the Chair. It is a matter for debate. The Leader of the House must explain what he is asking the House to approve and be questioned on that. That is the stuff of debate, not a matter for the Chair.

Patrick Cormack: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I entirely respect what you said, but the fact is that Short money exists as it does because the House has willed it so. It has approved the rules and decided how it should be applied. We are now told that a consequence of the motion will be that Short money will be reinterpreted, without the will of the House, in an entirely different way. Surely that cannot be right.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Whether it is right or wrong is not a matter for the Chair to determine. The House has a clear decision before it. If right hon. and hon. Members have doubts about what is proposed, they have the option of choosing not to approve it. There are other means by which the matter could be pursued on a future occasion. If the motion is agreed and doubt remains, there will be further parliamentary opportunities to eradicate those doubts. It is essentially a matter for debate.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The question is rather simpler than that. We wonder whether the motion can be in order if the wording is different from the interpretation that the House wishes to consider.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I say to the hon. Lady, who has considerable experience of such matters, that if the motions were not in order, they would not be on the Order Paper.

Geoff Hoon: rose

Several hon. Members: rose

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. To maintain the proper proprieties of debate, I should explain that it is difficult to intervene on the right hon. Gentleman when he has not uttered a further word.

Geoff Hoon: I am grateful to you for that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was about to make the same point: it is the first time that I have been intervened on before I have said anything. However, I give way.

Richard Shepherd: I am seeking the advice of the Leader of the House, with his legal experience. The resolution on Short money says:
	the expenses in respect of which assistance is claimed have been incurred exclusively in relation to that party's Parliamentary business.
	His response and the motion indicate that that is not the case for a specific United Kingdom party. That is the distinction. He has made a classa party apartthat can claim the money for other reasons. It is almost hybrid. How can he reconcile his arguments with hisstatement? Why are not all parties getting representative money?

Geoff Hoon: At the risk of straying beyond the terms of the motion, I want to make it clear that the House has approved the payment of what is strictly known as Opposition parties financial assistance, colloquially known as Short money. That is subject to a set of rules that the House has agreed. The rules are applied, subject to appropriate accounting supervision by the House authorities. The House now has an opportunity of debating and agreeing, if it so wishes, a motion relating to providing financial assistance for Sinn Fein and for those parties that have chosen not to take their seats. I accept that in the present context that applies to Sinn Fein. The rules would then be applied in exactly the same way as the rules for Short money, not going beyond the terms of the Short money requirement, but making it clear that this is in relation to the representative business of the party.
	The rules are clear and available for the House to consider. They are available for individual Members to comment on and decide upon when they come to vote. It seems that the matter is clear and is available for all Members to consider.
	I am at risk of extending what were quite short remarks rather further than I believe they should go. We have set out clearly the issues for the House to decide. There are opportunities for right hon. and hon. Members to make their points in the course of debate. I believe that in those circumstances it is appropriate for me to draw my remarks to a close.

Theresa May: In the light of the remarks of the Leader of the House in proposing the motions, I shall start by making it absolutely clear to the House that the Opposition are committed to the peace process in Northern Ireland. We all want to see a lasting peace in Northern Ireland, and we share the Government's aims and objectivestheir views on these matters are shared across the Housein seeking the restoration of devolution in Northern Ireland and the resumption of the work of the Northern Ireland Assembly. Moreover, in recent weeks we have demonstrated that we are willing to work with the Government on issues that are to the benefit of our country.
	I listened with great care to the Leader of the House and to his responses to the many interventions. I was concerned at the manner in which he appeared to threaten Members in relation to the decision that they take today. I felt that his contribution to the debate was, frankly, not worthy of him.
	The issue before us is not about the Northern Ireland peace process or about the resumption of the Assembly; it is about the role of Members of Parliament, what it means to sit in the House and the nature of the job of being an elected representative of this place. It is primarily on that basis that we oppose the action that the Government are seeking to take and will be voting against the motions.
	A number of Members, including my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), made the point during the debate on the business motion that these are matters of extreme importance to the House. I believe that the points can be made simply and succinctly, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) indicated during the same debate.
	Given the comments that the Leader of the House has made about the relationship between this issue and the Northern Ireland peace process, I believe that it is questionable whether the conditions that led to the decision taken by the House to suspend existing allowancesnamely, the involvement of Sinn Fein-IRA in criminal activitiesare no longer relevant. Indeed, the latest report of the Independent Monitoring Commission makes it clear that the republican movement remains involved in criminal activity and intelligence gathering, and raises real concerns about the way in which that movement is exercising community restorative justice. I shall quote one part of the report, on pages 34 to 35. The report states:
	We have no doubt that the PIRA, uniquely among paramilitary organisations, has taken the strategic decision to eschew terrorism and pursue a political path. There are a number of signs that the organisation is moving in the way it indicated in its statement of 28 July 2005. But in the light of some of the activities we refer to a real question remains of whether this will involve purely conventional politics conducted within a culture of lawfulness.
	I suggest that the Government's own conditions for reinstatement of the individual allowances have not been met. I refer the Leader of the House to his response in business questions to the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) on, I believe, 26 January, when he made it clear that it was his view that any political party that was still engaged in criminal activity should not receive allowances. I ask him to consider that response carefully. Frankly, it does not bear comparison with his speech this afternoon.
	I believe that the issue before us is essentially about the nature of being a Member of Parliament. There are two proposals before us from the Government. One is that the arrangements to give financial support to Members who have chosen not to take their seatsthe financial arrangements which were suspended as from 1 April 2005should now be reinstated, and more than that, should be backdated to 1 November 2005. The other goes far beyond that and beyond anything that has been proposed previously. It is extending financial support for those who choose not to take their seats beyond support for individual Members to support for a party that is represented by those Members.
	I believe that there are very strong parliamentary reasons for resisting these proposals. Before I set out those arguments, I shall refer to the timing of the debate. Coming as it does less than two days after talks between the British and Irish Governments and Northern Ireland political parties with a view to resuming the work of the Assembly, it clearly implies to the House, a link between that matter and the motions. The Leader of the House was quite open about it.
	The reason for bringing the motions before us today is not whether Members who do not take their seats should be entitled to allowances in relation to parliamentary business and the way that they stand alongside other Members of this place, but is simply about the role that the Government believe the motion can play in relation to encouraging further progress on the Northern Ireland peace process.
	Even if the motions were to have that effect, it would be wrong for the House to take a view on the role of Members of this place, and the use of taxpayers' money to support them in that role, purely for reasons of political expediency. Members should remember that while the debate so far has been framed in relation to Sinn Feinit is, of course, only Sinn Fein Members who today do not take their seats in the Housethe motions are framed on the principle of giving allowances to any Members of any political party who choose not to take their seats. We are debating a point of principle, not merely an issue relating to one particular political party.

Douglas Hogg: It is an important principle. If people seeking election make it plain that they will not take their seats but are none the less chosen by the electorate, should we not respect the views of the electorate?

Theresa May: We respect the view of the electorate that they have chosen particular individuals as their representatives. I suggest that when those electors took that decision to vote for those representatives, they did so fully in the knowledge that those representatives would not be taking their full part in the business of the House, and therefore would not be capable of representing them to the fullest extent, unlike other Members.

Philip Davies: Does my hon. Friend agree that the arguments advanced by the Leader of the House were about as convincing as those put by O J Simpson's defence lawyer? No one I have spoken to about this matter can understand the concept that money can be given for people's parliamentary activities when they do not take their seats in Parliament. That is the simple point.

Theresa May: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for putting the point so succinctly. I suggest that he might take care with his transatlantic references, given that I understand that O J Simpson's defence lawyer actually got him off and therefore won his arguments.

Daniel Kawczynski: Unfortunately, my office is next to that used by Sinn Fein-IRA, but I have never seen those Members since I became a Member of Parliament. They never turn up and go to their offices, let alone the Chamber.

Theresa May: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his observations which, I am sure, will help Members when they choose how to vote. It is important to look at the background to the issue to understand where we are today. Many hon. Members will remember, as has been said, that the previous Speaker, the right hon. and noble Baroness Boothroyd, ruled initially that no MP should receive allowances without taking up their seat in Parliament. Her ruling was based on a clear principle that there should be no associate Members of Parliament. Indeed, after a meeting with the hon. Members for Mid-Ulster (Mr. McGuinness) and for Belfast, West (Mr. Adams) in 1997, she said:
	I told them that they were in effect asking for associate membership of this House. Such a status does not exist.[Official Report, 4 December 1997; Vol. 302, c. 487.]
	The ruling made by the previous Speaker was subsequently overturned by Government motion in the House. The Leader of the House suggested that the motions are not about a point of principle but simply about the timing of the reinstatement of allowances and the extension of funding. I believe that it is still a point of principle that we should be debating in the House.
	It is a point of principle for my party that republican Members should not be treated any better, or any differently, from any other Member of Parliament. We reject Government attempts to produce a pick-and-mix Parliament with  la carte allowances for Members who refuse to take their seats in Westminster. We all know that the job of being a Member of Parliament has many facets, including dealing with constituency cases, providing advice and assistance to constituents, and taking up issues on their behalf with the Government and other agencies. Some of that work can be done without Members' attendance in the Chamber and participation in debates. However, Members who do not come to the House will not fulfil that role properly because a key way in which constituency cases can be raised with other Members is through written and oral parliamentary questions, points of order and participation in debates. The job of being an MP goes further, and includes contributing to debates in the House on issues of the day and debating, scrutinising and commenting on legislation. That includes the ability to try to amend legislation, not to mention the job of holding the Government to account for the impact of their policies on the country as a whole and on individual constituencies.

Peter Hain: Can the right hon. Lady confirm very clearly that she is against the whole principle of the allowances that the House decided in 2001 and which were endorsed last week in the report by the Independent Monitoring Commission, which said that they should be restored? We ought to know the right hon. Lady's position and whether she is against the decision that the House made in 2001.

Theresa May: If the right hon. Gentleman cares to look at the record he will see that Conservative Members voted against the principle of extending allowances to Sinn Fein at that stage, precisely because[Interruption.] He says, Now we know. The Government knew our position then, and they have known ever sinceit is hardly a revelation.

Peter Hain: Is it not the case that, despite the promises that the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) made in Northern Ireland questions, when he said that the Opposition supported the Government's attempts to make political progress, and despite the fact that the Leader of the Opposition has declared total change in every other Conservative policy platform, the Opposition are stuck in the past on this issue, and do not support progress in Northern Ireland?

Theresa May: I suggest that the Secretary of State consider very carefully what he has just said. He has repeated the implied threat of his right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to Members that if we look at this issue in relation to the business of the House and the nature of the parliamentarian's role we are stopping progress on the road to peace in Northern Ireland. I remind him that today's debate is about the business of the House and the role of Members of Parliament. Both he and the Leader of the House do themselves and their Government a disservice, given the terms in which they have addressed the House.

Kate Hoey: May I urge my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to reflect on what he has said? He may recall that a substantial number of Labour Members opposed the measure initially because of its parliamentary nature, and many Labour Members abstained. Labour Members opposed on-the-runs legislation, as did the two Northern Ireland parties on opposing sides, and it was not long before he had to give way on the issue. Does the right hon. Lady agree that when parties in Northern Ireland agree on something, particularly the issue of Short money, the Leader of the House should listen?

Theresa May: I entirely agree with the hon. Lady, who has made a valid point that this is not a party political issue in the House. There are grave concerns among Members on both sides about the Government's stance.

Lembit �pik: The right hon. Lady said that this is not a party political matter, but will she confirm something? She said that her party opposed the allowances, and that remains their position. Is it fair to surmise that if the Conservative party were in government, they would remove the allowances from people who do not take up their seats in the House?

Theresa May: Just as I am arguing that it is a matter for the House as to what happens on the allowances so, in due course, it will be a matter for the House as to what happens to them

Peter Hain: rose

Theresa May: Will the Secretary of State contain himself and wait a little longer? I repeat that today's debate on allowances is about a matter of principle and the role of a Member of Parliament. It is on that basis that I oppose the Government motions.

Peter Hain: I am grateful for the right hon. Lady's generosity in giving way. To pursue her earlier answer, if she became Leader of the House after the next election, would she table a motion to repeal the allowances for Members who have not taken their seats? We deserve an answer.

Nicholas Winterton: I hope that my right hon. Friend would repeal them.

Theresa May: Whatever the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton), I am not going to give any commitment about what will be done when we come to government after the next election. We are debating the Government's proposals and their impact on the House. [Interruption.] The Leader of the House is muttering from a sedentary position.

Geoff Hoon: I am perfectly prepared to speak from a standing position. If I understand her correctly, the shadow Leader of the House is quite happy to criticise what the Government are seeking to achieve in tabling the motion, but she is not prepared to tell the House what she would do in the unlikely event of her occupying my position.

Theresa May: My position is based on the fact that we are debating what should happen in the circumstances in which we find ourselves today. I cannot guarantee what those circumstances will be after the next election, when the Conservative party is in government. It is perfectly possible that Sinn Fein will take a different decision about Parliament, although I think it unlikely given the comments made by Sinn Fein Members. We will look at the situation when we are in government. It will not be for the right hon. Gentleman to worry about it in a few years' time, as it will be our concern.

David Heath: If I may move away from the highly hypothetical, is it not the case that Governments of any persuasion should not negotiate on matters that are the province of the House? The problem is that we are bound into agreements that the House is asked to consider and accept, as commitments have already been given.

Theresa May: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. As I indicated in my response to the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik) this is a matter for the House. It is about the business of the House, so it is for hon. Members to determine how they should take it forward. It was therefore unfortunate that the Government chose to introduce motions in relation to allowances, notwithstanding the ruling made by the previous Speaker.
	I return to the comments of the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) about legislation that had started its progress through the Housethe Northern Ireland (Offences) Bill. Members of Parliament who do not take their seats in the House cannot participate in debates, ask questions or undertake other aspects of membership of the House, and they cannot participate in debates on legislation specifically affecting Northern Ireland. They have no voice when legislation affecting Northern Ireland is going through the House, and no opportunity to amend that legislation in Standing Committee.
	I remind hon. Members that when the issue first arose, the then Speaker was clear in her oppositiona stance which survived legal challenge in the High Court and the European Court of Human Rights. No one in this place should be allowed to claim allowances without taking up their seat, because without taking up their seat they are not fulfilling their job as an elected representative in the House.
	I am interested in the number of interventions that I have received from the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. In his alter ego as the Secretary of State for Wales, he appears to accept that concept of the nature of elected representation. I draw hon. Members' attention to clause 23 of the Government of Wales Bill, which is going through the House. The clause makes it clear that no Member of the Welsh Assembly is entitled to claim any allowances until such time as they have taken the oath. Indeed, it goes further. If an elected Welsh Assembly Member does not take the oath within two months of being elected, they automatically forfeit their seat. I entirely accept that the Welsh Assembly is a different body from Parliament, but the principle remains the same. Why do the Government believe that elected representatives in the Welsh Assembly should not have allowances until they fulfil all their roles, whereas elected representatives at Westminster should be treated differently?

Patrick Cormack: Is my right hon. Friend aware that even as late as this morning, in answers to Northern Ireland questions, the Secretary of State indicated that he did not think that Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly ought to continue to receive their allowances if the Assembly was not sitting, so the Government's argument is nonsense.

Theresa May: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for illuminating the House further on yet another discrepancy in the position being taken by the Secretary of State for Northern Irelandnot only different positions as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and Secretary of State for Wales, but different positions at different times as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
	There are those who might say that the issue before us is simply a matter of the oath that Members must swear in order to take their seats, but it is not. As the hon. Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson) reminded us, the hon. Member for Belfast, West is quoted as saying:
	There will never ever be Sinn Fein MPs sitting in the British Houses of Parliament.
	If they have no intention of carrying out the responsibilities of being a Member of Parliament, why should they receive taxpayers' money?
	It was a badly misjudged decision by the Government to award the allowances in the first place, and it remains misjudged to attempt to reinstate them. However, the motions before the House go further than the previous position. As was debated through interventions in the speech of the Leader of the House, Ministers are not simply seeking to reinstate the position that they introduced and were subsequently forced to suspend. They are seeking to go further and create a new allowance for political parties whose Members do not take their seats in the House.
	I listened carefully to the Leader of the House and, depending which answers one accepted from him, that money appeared to be on the one hand Short money and on the other hand not Short money. That position is even more indefensible for the Government. Short money is not available to Members who have not sworn the oath because it is designed to offer assistance withparliamentary duties, specifically to assist an Opposition party in carrying out its parliamentary business. Why should a party that does not attend the House, does not vote, does not debate in the Chamberin other words, that does not engage in or undertake parliamentary duties or parliamentary businessreceive additional money to support its parliamentary activities? Surely that, more than anything else, confirms that this is not just a matter of parliamentary business.
	The Leader of the House made a number of references to the money, saying variously that it was Short money and that it was not Short money. I note that he did not respond to my direct question about the definition of representative business. As the House of Commons Library has made clear, the term has not been used previously in parliamentary procedure. The motion would bring about more than the extension of Short money. It would create a new parliamentary allowance.
	The Leader of the House should have recognised from the tone of the debate that if the Government's intention is to extend Short money to parties whose Members do not take their seats in the House, they should withdraw the motion and introduce a separate motion which makes that clear. The wording before us is not about Short money. It is about money that is available for representative business. It is a new allowance. I do not believe that parties whose Members are not participating fully in the House in all their duties as individual elected representatives and also as a party in opposition to the Government deserve to receive funding related to parliamentary activities or, more widely, a new allowance.

Paul Goodman: Can my right hon. Friend assist me? It is my recollection that when the Leader of the House was asked to give a definition of the purpose of the new money, he was unable to offer one to the House. Is my recollection right?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend's recollection is correct. The Leader of the House was challenged to give a clear definition. It is difficult for Members to support the Government's motion if they do not know what its implications will be, because the Leader of the House has refused to give that definition.

Douglas Hogg: My right hon. Friend will accept that there may be those of us who think that something like Short money should go to Sinn Fein, but does she agree that all of us can agree that all parties should be placed in a similar position? The one thing that would be wholly intolerable is if Sinn Fein were placed in a better position than, for example, any of the Unionist parties or the SDLP. Our belief is that that effect is achieved by the motion before the House.

Theresa May: I entirely agree with my right hon. and learned Friend that the motion appears to extend a new allowance which would put Sinn Fein, as that is the only party whose Members do not take their seats, in a different position and potentially, depending on the calculation and the expenditure, a better position than other Opposition parties, including Opposition parties in Northern Ireland.
	I have made my position clear. When Members of the House do not take their seats they are not doing their full job as Members of the House. Full stop. End of story. The Leader of the House does himself and his office a disservice in bringing the motions before the House today. No one will disagree that it is in everyone's interests for the republican movement to complete the transition from terrorism to democratic and peaceful politics, but as I said earlier, that is not the subject of the debate. The issue is what it means to be a Member of the House. Those who recognise the privilege of being elected to the House and those who value the House should clearly reject the Government's motions.

Several hon. Members: rose

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before I call the next speaker, I must point out that at least 15 hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye in this limited period of time. I hope that all hon. Members respect that fact and allow as many viewpoints as possible to be heard.

George Howarth: I will try to keep my remarks brief in order to allow as many hon. Members as possible the opportunity to speak.
	I sympathise with the sentiment expressed by the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) and welcome the Opposition's recommitment to the peace process. Although the situation is sometimes difficult, it is important that bipartisanship, which has occasionally faltered, is maintained as far as possible on the subject. However, the right hon. Lady cannot will the ends without accepting the means to those ends.
	I have thought long and hard about the motion, because I have some concerns about the status of Sinn Fein within the peace process and about how the UK Government and the Irish Government treat Sinn Fein. Some aspects of Sinn Fein's behaviour do not give me confidence that it is wholly engaged in democratic politics.
	I spent two years trying to make the Good Friday agreement work in Northern Ireland. The agreement was based on a degree of obstructive ambiguity, although the Northern Ireland Office was always keen for me not to express it in those terms. We brought Sinn Fein, the republican movement and some of the loyalist paramilitary elements into the process by allowing them to hold one view about the long-term position of Northern Irelandin the republicans' case, that they would like it to be part of a united Irelandwhile participating in a democratic process in Northern Ireland through devolved institutions.
	The solution was never neat and tidy, which is why the Democratic Unionist party and, in particular, the right hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) had reservations. They were opposed to the process and did not like the idea of constructive ambiguity, but we would not have got the Good Friday agreement without that degree of constructive ambiguity. We accept that Sinn Fein does not attend the Westminster Parliament, which, as a republican organisation, it does not think is a place for them. However, it must accept all the responsibilities that go with democratic politics, one of which is accepting the rule of law.
	The eighth report of the Independent Monitoring Commission has been quoted repeatedly in today's debate, and it is an important document of which we should take serious notice. Page 19, paragraph 3.21 states:
	members and former members of PIRA continue to be heavily involved in serious organised crime, including counterfeiting and the smuggling of fuel and tobacco . . . Some senior members are involved in money laundering and other crime . . . PIRA also seems to be using experts and specialists able to assist in the management of illegal assets.
	Lord Alderdice, the respected and distinguished former Speaker of the Assembly, is a member of the Independent Monitoring Commission. He has said:
	We could not share the same level of confidence that he
	General de Chastelain
	expressed that all weapons were decommissioned.
	When the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Woodward), the Policing Board and the Assistant Chief Constable, Sam Kinkaid, disagreed about the level of criminal activity, the Chief Constable, Sir Hugh Orde, said:
	But on the issues of organised crime the board is clear that PSNI and the other agencies advised that all paramilitary groups were still involved in organised crime.
	Sinn Fein is still engaged in the peace process, and it is still signed up to the Good Friday agreement. I have dealt with senior Sinn Fein members, and I believe that people such as Martin McGuinness and Gerry Adams are minded to change the political system and engage in democratic politics. Most of the senior Sinn Fein members, if not all, are committed to that process.

Ian Paisley: The hon. Gentleman will remember how far my party and I were prepared to go at the Leeds castle meeting, but when we were dealing with that matter, the Northern bank robbery was being planned. How can anyone have confidence in people who pretend that they can be trusted? Neither I nor anyone else on the Unionist side has needed to say that the IRA did the Northern bank robbery, because the southern Government have said so. We recently held talks with the southern Government, and they maintain their belief that the IRA and its leadership did that robbery.

George Howarth: The right hon. Gentleman has made a good point.
	The Sinn Fein leadership are still engaged in the process, and they are committed to bringing about change by democratic means. However, I am not convinced that they have got sufficient grip throughout the organisation and, in particular, into the IRA to ensure that the IRA has the respect for the rule of law implied by a commitment to democratic politics.

William McCrea: How can the hon. Gentleman trust Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness, when they spent 35 years telling the people of Northern Ireland that they were not part of the IRA army council? Some months ago, however, they told the people of Northern Ireland that they had resigned from the army council of the IRA. They lied to the people for 35 years, so how can the hon. Gentleman expect us to trust them now?

George Howarth: The hon. Gentleman has made a good point. The acts in which people were involved in the troubles in Northern Ireland were frankly revolting. I share the same disgust as the hon. Gentleman and other Democratic Unionist party Members at the atrocities, whether they were committed by loyalists or republicans, but my point is that many individuals have made the intellectual transition from terrorism to democratic politics. However, I am not convinced that they have has exercised sufficient authority sufficiently far down the chain to ensure that everybody who has been involved, and is involved, is operating under the same set of principles as they are. That is the difficulty.
	My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House made a good job of a difficult task, and I have some sympathy with him. Having on sat on that Front Bench for 26 hours trying to defend the Disqualifications Bill, I know precisely how difficult it can be to defend such provisions in the House. However, the one thing that he has not succeeded in doing to my satisfaction, and I suspect to that of many others, is explaining what the Short money amounts to in terms of representative duties. He made a stab at it, but it was probably not the best effort that he has ever made, as I think that he would be the first to admit. Perhaps the Minister could think about that before he winds up.
	It would be helpful if the Northern Ireland Office or one of the House authorities were to issue some restrictions on what that money can be spent on. As the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) said, whatever else Sinn Fein has displayed in recent years, it is clear that it does not always play by the rules. If it does not play by the rules in elections, as we know is sometimes the case, it is conceivable that it would not play by rules that seem to be fairly ambiguous.

Andrew MacKinlay: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

George Howarth: If my hon. Friend will let me finish my point, I may do so.
	It would be helpful if guidance, or a letter of principle or something similar could be issued making it absolutely clear what restrictions are applied to these funds. I am not be comfortable that they will used be for the purposes that are intended, even though my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House did not make it entirely clear what those purposes are. I hope to be given some assurances on that.
	Subject to that, I intend to support the Government, but I make this one final point before doing so. I have a great deal of sympathy with constitutional and democratic parties in Northern Ireland, which are fed up to the back teeth with hearing Sinn Fein promising to change and then finding that the evidence subsequently shows that it has not done so. Sinn Fein must realise that the time is rapidly approaching when it needs to fulfil all its obligations if we are to continue to give it the support that we have given it in the past. So far, it has not done so. Before we go any further with this process, I urge it to make it absolutely clear that it has made that change and that it is permanent.

Lembit �pik: I welcome the publication last week of the latest report by the Independent Monitoring Commission. While it gives us reasons to feel encouraged in relation to the activities of the IRA, I also recognise, in the words of the IMC, that
	Like an oil tanker, the organisation will take a while to turn completely.
	Some aspects of the report still give us concern. I remain deeply worried by the level of involvement of IRA members in organised crime. The right hon. Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth) read out some salient sections of the report. We know that the IRA is well placed to run fairly sophisticated organised crime operations. That is very damaging to Northern Ireland. Any and all paramilitary activity is a threat to democracy, human rights and the rule of law. All members of society, including republicans, have a duty to co-operate with the legal authorities to ensure that the criminal justice system can do its job. The IRA must now clearly demonstrate that the rule of law will prevail in all areas of life, not only in relation to paramilitary violence.
	Sometimes the Government seem rather schizophrenic in their approach towards terrorism. They are sympathetic and cut some slack to the IRA and other paramilitary organisations in Northern Ireland, while almost in the same breath they introduce regulations and make tough-sounding speeches here about terrorist organisations that do not derive from the troubles of the Province.
	I am disturbed by the fact that the practice of exiling has not ceased. Exiling was specifically mentioned in paragraph 13 of the joint declaration. If the people of Northern Ireland are to be confident that the IRA is standing by its commitment last August that all paramilitary activity is to cease, that unacceptable practice must end.
	Nevertheless, the IMC's assessment of the current extent of IRA activity gives us some reasons to be encouraged. The commission has found no evidence of authorised paramilitary assaults or of recruitment for paramilitary purposes. Those are very significant developments. I particularly welcome the fact that the IMC is of the firm view that the IRA's leadership has taken the decision to end the armed campaign and pursue a political course. There will be suspicion and cynicism about that assessment, but I judge that the IMC has no particular reason to be falsely optimistic, and therefore find it plausible.
	As the Leader of the Housewho has unfortunately had to leavepointed out, the IMC's recommendation as regards the allowances that were withdrawn is clear in paragraphs 5.7 and 5.8 of its report. Paragraph 5.7 states:
	On 19 October 2005, the day the British and Irish Governments published our last report, the Secretary of State announced that he had decided to restore Sinn Fin's Assembly allowances with effect from 1 November and that he would in due course recommend to the House of Commons that it lift the suspension of the allowances of Sinn Fin MPs. This he did on 26 January 2006 and the House of Commons is due to debate it on 8 February.
	Paragraph 5.8 goes on to saythis is the crucial point
	In the circumstances we have described in this report we do not believe that financial measures against Sinn Fin of the kind referred to above should continue.
	There has been some debate about whether we are discussing Assembly allowances or parliamentary allowances as they relate to this Chamber. The report makes it clear that we are discussing the latter. There can be no debate about that; there is nothing ambiguous or equivocal about what the report says.
	That leads those of us who regard the IMC as a reliable, independent arbiter on these matters to conclude that it advises us to support the Government's motion to reinstate financial support for Sinn Fein Members.

Nigel Dodds: I am following the hon. Gentleman's argument closely. He is praying in aid the IMC report, as did the Leader of the House. Would he care to comment on the Government's decision following the previous IMC report, which explicitly stated that the Progressive Unionist party should not continue to receive money? The Government chose to ignore that recommendation by the IMC, yet now they and the hon. Gentleman are relying on its report in support of their argument.

Lembit �pik: The hon. Gentleman may want to expand on that point should he catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker. It did strike me as somewhat curious that the Government were willing to accept some aspects of the IMC's report and ignore others. That makes it rather difficult for those of us who have been sympathetic and, in my view, constructive for nine years in trying to support the Government on Northern Ireland business.
	I try to be consistent in following the guidance of, in this case, the Independent Monitoring Commission, but the Government do not seem to feel obliged to do the same. Will the Secretary of State clarify what is a perfectly reasonable question, which has caused some angst in various quarters, as it looks to some of us as if the IRA gets preferential treatment in comparison with other paramilitary organisations? Ironically, on this occasion, the PUP got preferential treatment in relation to the allowances paid. I shall leave it to the Secretary of State to respond to that.
	On the second, more contentious issue of the Short money or modified Short money

Andrew MacKinlay: New money.

Lembit �pik: Yes. As I have suggested, calling it Hoon money would avoid confusion.

Andrew MacKinlay: This is not a question of a distinction without a difference. Short money is not available to Sinn Fein because it is disqualified. We are discussing a new allowance, but people are going down the Government's route of conflating the two. It is new money, and it is exclusive to Sinn Fein.

Lembit �pik: I want to focus on that. The hon. Gentleman is correct. As all Members know, and as we have discussed, Short money is provided to Opposition parties to assist them in carrying out parliamentary business. I am keen for the Secretary of State to explain what kind of parliamentary business will be undertaken by Members who choose not to take their seats. In that regard, can he respond to four specific questions? First, how much money will it be? Secondly, for what purposes does he expect it to be used? Thirdly, how will the system be monitored to ensure that any expenditure will truly be for parliamentary business, not constituency matters, which are already accounted for? Fourthly, what will any organisation using such money be able to do that will not be permitted for those of us using Short money?
	The Secretary of State might say that those points were covered by the Leader of the House. I am sorry to say, however, that the Leader of the House's responses were somewhat ambiguous. My hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) and I sought clarification and confirmation that there was nothing that a recipient of the new Hoon money could do that recipients of Short money were banned or prevented from doing. The Leader of the House's response was rather confusing. Fortunately, he twice said specifically that nothing could be done with the new money that would not be permitted for those who receive Short money. The Secretary of State must pin the matter down, however, because the record will be analysed in detail when challenges are made, if, for example, in this case, Sinn Fein is suspected of abusing the money.

Douglas Hogg: Is not the most sensible approach that we should not extend to Sinn Fein Short money or Hoon money unless and until we see a full resolution that also tackles the payment of moneys to the traditional Opposition parties whose Members do take their seats? We can therefore be sure that there is no discrepancy between one set of Opposition parties and Sinn Fein.

Lembit �pik: The right hon. and learned Gentleman makes an interesting point. I have a couple of suggestions of my own.

Peter Hain: I hope that I can help the hon. Gentleman and the House. As to how much money will be available, it is a little over 84,000. It is not, as it were, a case of the House taking a wheelbarrow to give the money to Sinn Fein[Interruption.] It will benefit the House if I can explain the matter. Sinn Fein can only claim such money against proper receipted applications, in line, as the motion says, with the rules set out in paragraphs (1) and (2), exclusively in terms of representation and the Short motion passed by the House on 26 May 1999. As to what the money will be for, it will be for research and that kind of activity. On how it will be monitored, it would be helpful if the chief accounting officer issued guidance in due course, which I would welcome, as is proper.
	I am sorry that this intervention is a little long, Madam Deputy Speaker, but the hon. Gentleman will be aware that in recent times there has been a lot of conflict, which has included a former Leader of the Opposition, about Short money. That is why the rules have had to be clarified. That is also why it is important that the House has proper guidance and proper rules properly enforced. Sinn Fein Members of Parliament will not be able to do anything that other Members of Parliament cannot do. It is helpful to clarify that to the House.

Lembit �pik: I found that intervention quite helpful. I wish that the Leader of the House had been as clear as the Secretary of State is being. I found the Leader of the House's comments somewhat confusing, and they led to concern, which, to some extent, the Secretary of State is allaying, about the specific implementation of the new money.

Andrew MacKinlay: I find the hon. Gentleman extraordinarily naive. If he reads the Official Report tomorrow, he will see that the Secretary of State conflated a couple of things. The only relevance of the Short money, under paragraph (2) of the motion, is in relation to the formula for calculating the amount of money, in terms of numbers of Members of Parliament and numbers of votes. There is no cross-reference whatever in the motion to Short money. There cannot be; it is like trying to merge the rules of rugby with soccer.

Lembit �pik: I find the hon. Gentleman extraordinarily impatient.

Andrew MacKinlay: I am, because I am hearing a lot of rot.

Lembit �pik: The hon. Gentleman says from a sedentary position that he has heard a lot of rot. I am not sure whether that is parliamentary language, but I know where he is coming from. I ask him to be patient with me, at least, because I am trying to help the Government as best I can.

Andrew MacKinlay: Why?

Lembit �pik: I assure him that many Liberal Democrat Members are not seeking to help the Government. No doubt other Opposition Members will be in the same position.
	Because I see what the Secretary of State and the Government are trying to do, I always ask the question: if I was in their position, what would I do? I would certainly entertain the prospect of creating some kind of fund that created parity between political parties. It was therefore valid to raise the specific concern about the mechanics. The Secretary of State has some way to go to define exactly how allocation of the Hoon money will be implemented. What makes people nervous is the concern that any assurance given here will not hold water out there, and that this debate will provide no recourse or insurance policy in relation to any legal challenge about the abuse in spirit of this money. The Secretary of State must reassure the Chamber that there is not a way around the intended spirit of the proposals.

George Howarth: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that issuing guidance against which those allowances could be audited, not necessarily through an accounting officer but through the House authorities or the Secretary of State, would provide a benchmark?

Lembit �pik: I agree. If the Secretary of State wants the motion to be passed, he should give an assurance that if any further orders need to be passed to secure that, he is willing to bring those before the House. I will take him at his word on that, because he is honourable.

Sammy Wilson: The hon. Gentleman is prepared to take assurances from the Secretary of State that the accounts will be properly audited. Would he care to look at the travel expense claim of the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Mr. McGuinness), who has claimed sufficient to have attended the House every week during its sittings, as well as during periods when it was not sitting? Despite all the procedures, he was able to get away with that kind of claim without having attended the House once.

Lembit �pik: Perhaps he feels guilty. Perhaps he sits here in the dark when we are not here. Who knows? The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point, however. Everyone wants to verify the expenditure, because few of us think that it is being handled in an entirely honourable way.

Several hon. Members: rose

Lembit �pik: I give way to the Secretary of State, because he has something to which to respond.

Peter Hain: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I am trying to help him, and I am trying to help the House. What we seek to do is apply the Short money model, to the letter, to Members who have not taken their seats.

Nicholas Winterton: Why?

Peter Hain: I shall leave that to the argument about the principle. I am seeking to deal with the detail. The application of the Short money model to Members who have not taken their seats is for representative purposes. The Short money resolutionthis is an important point, and the House should take a bit of care over itdoes not define parliamentary business any more than the motion defines representative business. Both phrases must be interpreted by the House authorities.

Nigel Dodds: It is a very wide definition.

Peter Hain: Indeed, and we need to be careful. If a speech were made by a Front-Bench spokesman outside the House with the use of Short money-sponsored parliamentary research, I do not think there would be any objection. We are applying exactly the same model to those using the money for representative rather than parliamentary purposes.

Lembit �pik: That is a valid point. There will always be difficulties with the interpretation of Short money. Every party tests the line. Let us not be too sanctimonious.

Douglas Hogg: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Lembit �pik: I think that I should bring my remarks to a close.
	Will the Secretary of State assure us that if, as a result of reflection following the debate, it turns out that specific arrangements are necessary that may require us to return to the House, he will act following consultation with, for instance, Members who have taken part in this debate, along with Opposition parties including those from Northern Ireland? I think everyone wants to ensure that the system is not abused.
	Let me deal briefly with the principle of what we are doing, and explain why I may have seemed naively supportive in the eyes of the hon. Member for West Thurrock.

Andrew MacKinlay: The whole of Thurrock. Every bit of it.

Lembit �pik: I am sorry. I mean the hon. Member for the whole of Thurrock.
	I am keen to normalise the circumstances in Northern Ireland. I think that we all are. There is, however, a principle at stake. It is a question whether we can haveif I may employ a phrase used by Betty Boothroyd and invoked by the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May)associate Members of Parliament. Betty Boothroyd was very clear that we should not, but I think the Government have said that they are willing to allow it, for the purposes of brokering a peace in Northern Ireland. I feel uncomfortable about it for reasons that have already been given, but if we do allow such an arrangement, it cannot be framed simply around the interests of one particular party at one particular stage of one negotiation.
	The Leader of the House spoke about Sinn Fein in such specific terms that it was, I think, lost on him that we are setting principles that could lead to unintended consequences. I suspect that that is one of the reasons why he got himself into trouble over this. I am also concerned about the attitude of the Conservatives. They cannot say at one moment that it is a question of principle, and at the next moment be unable to say what they would do in government. I ask the right hon. Member for Maidenhead to accept that she has a responsibility to illustrate the principles in action if she wants her party to be taken seriously as a potential Government, because principles do not change on the basis of whether a party is in government.
	What would I have said if I had been Leader of the House, and had insisted on getting this measure through? First, I would have used a different term from Short money. Perhaps Hoon money is a good way of describing it. Certainly I do not want my name to be associated with it for evermore.
	I would have defined Hoon money according to three conditions. First, it would have to be paidsubject to approval by the Houseto individuals and not to parties. Anyone who was duly elected to the House but chose not to take his place, perhaps for reasons of conscience, could apply for the money and ask for his application to be considered. I would disconnect the money from Sinn Fein specifically, and connect it to individual Members of the House. I would then require the House to debate any specific application. Secondly, I would demand an annual review to establish whether there had been infractions or abuses, and whether the House had changed its view. Thirdly, I would ensure that if at any stage the conditions had been violated, the rights of the individual to receive the Short money would end.
	I know that the Secretary of State cannot rewrite the legislation now, but he really must assure us that the Government recognise thatas the right hon. Member for Maidenhead saidwe are talking about setting a principle, not about putting yet another plaster on the Northern Ireland peace process. He must also make it absolutely clear that he understands why so many of us are sceptical about the Government's ability to see the difference between a bribe and a principle. I hope that he can give us those assurances. I know that this move may not be popular with some Members, but I think that if the Secretary of State can demonstrate a strategic understanding of what he is doing, there may be a case for doing something of the kind.
	My party, like others, has been given a free vote, but the onus is nevertheless on the Secretary of State to clarify the position. I shall listen carefully to what he says in order to decide whether he has convinced me, and I expect that others will take the same approach.

DEFERRED DIVISION

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have now to announce the result of the Division deferred from a previous day.
	On the motion on Intellectual Property, the Ayes were 332, the Noes 159, so the motion was agreed to.
	[The Division List is published at the end of today's debates.]

Opposition Parties (Financial Assistance)

Question again proposed, That the motion be made.

David Anderson: This cannot simply be an academic debate, or one about bureaucracy. We cannot ignore the background of a society that has been at war with itself for the past 40 years. In most debates it is possible to say to others, I understand where you're coming from. We all know that that is impossible in this situation. A community divided by centuries of hate, bigotry and discrimination has no parallels for most of us. A world in which it is still normal to build physical barriers even higher between communities is alien to most of us. And an attitude to life and death that has resulted in horrific acts being committed in the name of God and countryfrom every possible angleis incomprehensible to most of us.
	That incomprehension led the vast majority of people in Great Britain to turn their backs on the issues of Northern Ireland; they became just another problem in just another remote part of the world. They were shrugged off with the question, What else can you expect? They were easy to ignore; for most people, that simply meant turning the telly off or turning it over. But we in Great Britain were wrong to ignore the problem, and we were wrong to pretend that it was just some local issue. We should always remember that if the killings in Northern Ireland had been repeated on a proportional basis across Great Britain, more than 100,000 people would have been killed. I do not believe that anyone would have ignored that situation.
	It is a matter of some note that we have moved on from the sad, bad days of the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s, when some of us believed that we would never see a resolution. Even worse, many people did not seem to care whether we did or not. Thankfully, owing in no small measure to the courage of many people in the House and beyond, things have changed. The situation has improved, and if we do not falter, things can get better.
	That did not happen by chance. It happened because people were prepared to take risks for peace. John Major took risks for peace by meeting terrorists while they were publicly banned. Mo Mowlam took risks for peace by going into the Maze prison to face those who had been at the forefront of the terror campaign. Our Prime Minister took risks for peace by refusing to take no for an answer from anyone. Politicians from all sides have taken risks in an attempt to move forward, when stepping back into their comfort zone would have been much easier.
	Beneath all that high-level risk taking, thousands of ordinary people were also saying, We've had enough. The convenor of Unison in Northern Ireland, despite his misgivings and those of his community, stood up and led the call to vote yes to the Belfast agreement. The people working in the accident and emergency unit of the Mater hospital in Belfast refused to be intimidated by gun-wielding thugs trying out a novel way to beat the NHS waiting lists. People right across the community have accepted changes to their way of life that no one would have believed possible. From the changes to the police service to the changes to the Irish constitution, people have taken risks for peace.
	People have done just about all that they have been asked to do, and now we are being asked again to take a hard decision. It is clear from the debate today that some people will never agree to recognise the reason for paying public money to any party that refuses to sit in this Chamber. I concede that others will question whether real progress has been made in the past year to justify the reinstatement of the allowances. I also accept that some will question the validity of the IMC recommendations. I know that many people not only question the logic of reinstating the allowance but have reservations about the Short money, and, like many other hon. Members, I look forward to hearing what the Secretary of State has to say about that.
	There is a logic to these proposals, however. Last year, the IMC recommended that the allowances be withdrawn, and the House agreed to do that. Now it is recommending that they should be reinstated, and we should listen to that argument carefully.

Lady Hermon: For the hon. Gentleman's assistance, I should like to correct a little detail. The IMC recommended last year that Sinn Fein's allowance be withdrawn for a year. Why in heaven's name is the hon. Gentleman trying to encourage people to vote for the motion to backdate the allowances to Sinn Fein to 1 November, which would actually undo the recommendation of the IMC?

David Anderson: I am doing so because this is the only motion before us today. There is not a motion on the principles behind these issues, although many hon. Members have spoken today as though there were. However, this is the motion before us, and I believe that it represents the best way forward. This is a big ask, and I understand why some hon. Members believe that it is too big. However, we still need to reach the goal of real peace, which we have not yet achieved. So many people have reached out before us to do this, and we should not stop that endeavour.
	I said earlier that we cannot pretend to understand the reality of Northern Ireland if we have not been a direct part of it. The closest I have ever been to a community at war with itself was in the aftermath of the miners strike, when communities were divided and respect for law and order had broken down; sometimes, members of the same family still do not speak to each other. However, falling out with each other, blaming each other and fighting with each other did not bring back a single job or prevent a single pit from closing. Nor did it save a single family from breaking up because of the intolerable pressures that ordinary men and women had to face.
	I respect the fact that the issues that we faced in the coalfields up and down Britain were a quantum leap away from what happened in Northern Ireland, but the link was the men and women facing enormous challenges, usually way beyond their control. Ultimately, we have to accept that all the hate, pent-up resentment and deep-rooted sorrow in the world will not bring back one lost soul or help one child to make up for the loss of a parent. Neither will it help any community to rebuild its broken heart.
	This is a big ask, but we have a big chance. We have a chance to leave behind the gun and the bomb for ever, a chance to give our kids the sort of life that our generation lost, and a chance to show the world the real, warm face that the people of Ireland genuinely possess. We have to accept that if the restoration of the allowances can help us to do that, we should vote for the motion.

Ian Paisley: Many of the matters before us have already been covered by the various hon. Members who have spoken today, and I shall not make a long speech, because many others want to make a contribution to the debate. It is only right that they should have the opportunity to do so.
	The people of Northern Ireland deeply resent any suggestion that those who are motivated to keep this motion from going through are motivated by hatred of the people involved and by a refusal to face facts. All of us have had to face facts, but the suggestion has been made by the Secretary of State and the Leader of the House that if we do not pass the motion and there is retaliation, we should be responsible for what happens. We should not. Every Member of the House has the right to state their view. If people want to impute principles to their opponents, they can do so, but the fact is that the people of Northern Ireland do want peace. The greatest sacrifices for peace have been made by the population whom my colleagues and I represent in this House.
	Who gave their sons to be murdered by the terrorists? Who supplied the police officers and the police force? Who supplied the Army volunteers? The vast majority came from the Protestant and Unionist community. I know that some very famous families came from the Roman Catholic community, and that they too suffered. The IRA refused to allow the body of a constituent of mine whom they had blown up to be buried in his own church graveyard. His body had to be carried to a graveyard six miles away, because the IRA said, If you bury him in his own graveyard, we'll dig him up. We will not allow him to be buried there. These are things that people have suffered.
	Let the House get this point in its mind today. There is the inklingthe Secretary of State and the Leader of the House seemed to suggest as muchthat if we do not take this step, there will be a dread result. However, the dread result of taking this step will be this: there will be another concession, and the same argument will be used. After that a further concession will be made and the same argument will be used again, until the cause is surrendered and the people of Northern Ireland have lost their way completelynot through their own fault, but because they were misled. The Secretary of State needs to think very carefully about what he is doing.
	The suggestion that those who oppose such moves are hindering peace is the suggestion of someone who is not facing facts. We do not oppose peace. Every one of my Members has been attacked. Every one of them has been subjected to an attempted killing, and some of them have been beaten up. My own wife, who was a member of Belfast council, was beaten up and stoned in the street. I know what they have been through. We in this House need to ask ourselves, What about the people who are the real carriers of the peace banner? What do they think about this? I certainly know from my constituency experience what the victims feel. They feel that this is a bribe to IRApay money, blood money.
	In this regard, I think in particular of what happened to my hon. Friend the Member for South Antrim (Dr. McCrea). I confronted one of the leaders of the IRA in the Assembly when he was speaking about the support of childrenabout how we should all love our childrenand I said, What did you do when you were the IRA commander in Londonderry? You sent your gunmen to my friend's home on a Sunday night, after he had finished his service, and when his five children were in bed you ordered that bullets be put through the bedroom. Forty-six bullets were put through that bedroom in my hon. Friend's home, and it is a miracle that no one was killed.
	We need to face up to those who think that way. There should be no bribes and no giving in. All of us who want to take part in these talks are told that we have to be democrats. All the parties have said that they will keep to thatexcept one, which says, No. We are going to hold on to our weapons. We are going to continue our campaign.

Kate Hoey: The right hon. Gentleman is obviously very experienced in these matters and has lots of meetings with the Prime Minister. I am genuinely interested to know whether he feels that this initiative came about long before the IMC report. Does he think that some kind of agreement was stitched up between the Prime Minister and the leader of IRA-Sinn Fein?

Ian Paisley: Yes, my conviction is that certain things were done at a certain time, which my party had no connection with at all. In fact, I never had the opportunity even to speak to the Prime Minister, because I was banned from Downing street for almost two years; I do not have the Prime Minister's ear. I draw the conclusion that other things will emerge from the cupboard. Heaven knows what they will be, but this is one of them. Tonight, this House has a duty.

Peter Robinson: My right hon. Friend may want to respond to the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) on the assumption that she has not received the Labour party's briefing note for the debate. It contains a bullet point that states that the lifting of financial sanctions formed part of the negotiations with Sinn Fein that ultimately led to the 28 July statement ending the armed campaign and to the decommissioning of weapons. Clearly, the sanctions formed part of the deal done by the Prime Minister and his colleagues to get a statement from Sinn Fein-IRA.

Ian Paisley: I accept that. Although my deputy seems to get papers that I do not, I confess that I get papers that he does not.
	Even so, it is clear that things remain in the cupboard. I want the cupboard doors to be opened, and the Government to say what they have agreed with the IRA. There can be no future in talks between the parties until everyone knows what has been agreed and what tacit arrangements have been made.

Nicholas Winterton: I am in entire agreement with the leader of the Democratic Unionist party. I admire him immensely for his courage and for the leadership that he has given in Northern Ireland, which has made his party the largest in that part of the UK [Interruption.] I admire him immensely, and will continue to do so. However, does he intend to refer to paragraphs 3.23 and 3.27 in the IMC report, which suggest that both PIRA and RIRA retain their weapons and ammunition? Paragraph 3.27 states that the Real IRA
	continues to develop its equipment and to seek both to recruit members and acquire munitions. Some parts of the organisation are working on a long term strategy and are focusing on the training

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that interventions should be brief.

Nicholas Winterton: From the Front Bench, too.

Ian Paisley: I was about to come to some quotations that need to be repeated in this House. We have heard a lot about what has been said in favour of the proposal, but we also need to hear what has been said against it by the various commissions.
	How have we got to this point? We have had the Makro robbery, the Bobby Tohill abduction, and the robbery of goods from the Strabane branch of Iceland. Cigarettes with a market value of approximately 2 million were stolen from a bonded vehicle in Belfast, and there was also the Northern bank robbery. Those incidents form the background that shows why the money ceased to be paid.
	None of the assets from those crimes have ever been recovered. The proceeds of the crimes are in the possession of the IRA, which has more money than it will ever be able to spend or launder. The Government are asking us to dip into our finances and give the IRA taxpayer's money, and something extra.
	The people of Northern IrelandRoman Catholics, Protestants and those with no religionthink that the situation is desperate. They gather around public representatives and ask what is going on. They almost blame us, because they think that the proposal stems from individual MPs. The Government have to face up to that.
	About intelligence gathering, the IMC said:
	We believe that the organisation
	that is, PIRA
	continues to engage in it and has no present intention of doing otherwise. This is an activity which we believe is authorised by the leadership.
	We heard from a Labour Member that the leaders were against that, but the IMC said that
	it is organised by the leadership and involves some very senior members.
	Whom should we believe?
	I opposed the setting up of the IMC. Indeed, the first time that we met it, we had a humdinger of a row. However, the IMC did its best to try to be fair to all. I do not agree with all of its report, and it would not agree with all my comments, but the fact remains that its report states:
	PIRA continues to raise funds and we also believe that it looks to the long term exploitation of the proceeds of earlier crimes, for example through the purchase of property or legitimate businesses.
	So those people will use those proceeds to buy property and set up business, and we are expected to give them some more money. The report continues:
	Some senior members are involved in money laundering and other crime.
	It also states:
	We have . . . received reports that not all PIRA's weapons and ammunition were handed over for decommissioning in September.
	After reading that report, one would ask why we should give any more money to the IRA.
	There is a distinct difference between Short money and the money proposed in the motion, which is entirely separate new money. We do not know how the arrangement will be organised or run. We just know that we have to give those people new money. All of us who receive Short money know how meticulous the auditors are about the use of that money, and rightly so. It should be spent only on what this House voted for it to be spent on. But the money today is new money, and we do not yet knowthe Secretary of State cannot tell ushow the use of that money will be supervised.
	Last month, the Leader of the House said:
	If organisations are not committed to a peaceful process and to democratic work, they should not be entitled to those allowances.[Official Report, 26 January 2006; Vol. 441, c. 1528.]
	I can tell him today that those organisations have not committed themselves to a peaceful process, and they have not become fully democratic. Therefore, they should not be given any money. I would like the Government to state clearly that those organisations cannot get on the train with a subsidised ticket until they are democratic. If we had all the democrats together round the table, one would hope to achieve a solution. Many people who do not take part in active politics would also beg for that to happen.

William McCrea: Perhaps the House should bear in mind the fact that I am resident in a constituency that has a Member of Parliament who has never attended this House and never once made representations on behalf of his constituents since he was elected in 1997. There is more money for a representative role, but 60 per cent. of people in the Mid Ulster constituency did not vote for that Member. They are being denied representation. When will this House stand up for those who have no voice here at present, and say that a representative should speak here for his people?

Ian Paisley: My hon. Friend makes a vital point, and the time has come for the Government to say that if people do not abide by the rules of the club, they cannot be in the club. At the moment, the IRA is holding a gun to all our heads.
	I cannot recall how many times I have received absolute assurances from the Prime Minister that as long as there are crimes there will be nothing for those people. Well, they are still committing crimes, yet we are making another move. What will be the next thingand the next, and the next?
	We should be careful about giving money to those people. They do not need it anyway; they have more money than they can ever launder. There are many important things in Northern Ireland that need time for thorough discussionhospitals, education and water ratesyet we are debating whether we should pass money to the IRA. I say no: taxpayers' money only for those who are democrats.
	I apologise for speaking for so long, Madam Deputy Speaker; there were a lot of interruptions, so I hope that you will forgive me.

Andrew MacKinlay: This afternoon, the Foreign Secretary will address the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs about the grave situation in Iran and I want to be at that meeting, so I shall mean no discourtesy to the House when I absent myself later in the debate

Patrick Cormack: But not during your speech.

Andrew MacKinlay: Not during my speech, which I have patiently waited a long time to deliver. I want to address some of the comments made by the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) and my hon. Friends the Members for Blaydon (Mr. Anderson) and for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn).
	I respectfully remind Members that we are debating not one motion but two, and that there is a major difference between them. I invite the House to oppose motion 3 but not motion 4. I can live with motion 4; it broadly restores what the House had granted Sinn Fein and removed as a sanction. I take the point made by the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham. I am a socialist and when I take the Oath I always preface it by telling the Clerkwho often gives me an old-fashioned lookthat my mandate comes from the people of Thurrock, not from either a monarch or a prelate. I then proceed to take the Oath, which I am pleased to do.
	I take on board the point made by the hon. Member for South Antrim (Dr. McCrea) about the frustration experienced by constituents who are not represented in this place, but we have accepted the Westminster, first-past-the-post system and the electors of Belfast, West, Thurrock or south-east London have to live with whoever won. The next general election will determine the remedy. If Members choose to abstain from our proceedings, that is a matter between them and their electors.
	Although I can live with motion 4, I cannot support motion 3. I invite my hon. Friends to address the fact that it would introduce a new, exclusive allowance for only one political party, which cannot be justified as it has been presented to us. I remind my hon. Friends that although the debate was not fully advertised as a House of Commons matter we have the unique opportunity of a free vote, which I shall be pleased to exercise in opposing motion 3, and I invite Members to join me in the Lobby.
	It is difficult to ascertain when the decision to create the new allowance was taken, or when it was announced to the House. I became aware of it just before business questions last week, when a Whip phoned me about it, and I am grateful to her for her kindness in drawing it to my attention. I realised subsequently that the debate involved not only the restoration of moneys that had been removed as a sanction but the new allowance.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North and I may disagree in many of our views about Northern Ireland, but given his intervention we may agree on one narrow pointthat there could be a case for state funding for political parties. We have all debated that and we hold various views. However, the allowance in motion 3 creates state funding for one political party to the exclusion of all othersthat is what I find unacceptableand it does so because the rules are written exclusively for that political party.

Jeremy Corbyn: My hon. Friend is slightly missing the point. The money is for representational purposes. Representation is not just what we say in the Chamber; it is also involves representations directly to Ministers, meetings, briefings and all the other things that go with it, as he well knows.

Andrew MacKinlay: I do not think that my hon. Friend and I disagree about that. However, the rules that will apply if motion 3 is passed have been announced, but they relate only to Sinn Fein. The Conservative party, the Liberal party, the SDLP, the DUP and the SNP must adhere to different, much narrower criteria.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Washington, East (Mr. Kemp) pressed the Leader of the Houseif I could have the right hon. Gentleman's attention for a momentto define the parameters of Short money, because he criticised the Conservatives' stewardship of it. The Conservatives said that it was inappropriate and quite wrong to accuse them of abusing Short money. My hon. Friend has asked the Leader of the House to clarify the parameters, and they have been clearly defined and relate to exclusively to parliamentary business. The provision did not extend to representative business. That shows the difference that is being made for Sinn Fein.
	We must understand the nature of Sinn Fein, which believes that its writ runs like a seamless robe throughout Ireland. Let us take the position of the Leader of the House, who said that Sinn Fein might have a spokesperson on a certain matter. It is not possible, either for Sinn Fein or an accounting officer, to distinguish whether that spokesperson is, for example, talking about transportation in Northern Ireland, or in Monaghan or Cavan or elsewhere. Such things cannot be allocated and put into watertight compartments. That is the nature of Sinn Fein. I am not laying that down; it is part of the party's own rules and ethos that it believes that there is no such thing as Northern Ireland and that its spokespeople are entitled to talk about all 32 counties.

Jeremy Corbyn: My hon. Friend is in danger of burying himself in the detail of his own argument. Surely, the issue is that if Short money is paid to a party, it is used to prepare briefings and other information for meetings with Ministers and so on. Is he saying that the other parties that receive Short money do not use any of that information other than in the Chamber of the House of Commons or in its Committees? Do they not use it in meetings with Ministers and in respect of all the other issues? Why is he so obsessed with the detail?

Andrew MacKinlay: The detail is crucial. We have detailed ground rules and strict parameters are laid down. I did not lay them down. The ground rules were laid down after a challenge by my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Washington, East (Mr. Kemp), who criticised the Conservatives in particular by suggesting that they were using the money for the purposes referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North.

Douglas Hogg: The hon. Gentleman, with whom I very much agree, might wish to point out to the hon. Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) that paragraph 6 of the 1975 resolution requires the parties to certify
	that the expenses in respect of which assistance is claimed have been incurred exclusively in relation to that party's Parliamentary business.
	There is, therefore, the real possibility that we are creating a major gap between the traditional Opposition parties and Sinn Fein.

Andrew MacKinlay: I want to move on, because, as I have indicated, there might be a case for the state funding of political parties, but that is a matter for debate on another occasion. That should be taken seriously and considered across the United Kingdom; or if hon. Members were persuaded that there are exceptional circumstances in Northern Ireland, we could debate it in the context of Northern Ireland. I am conscious of the fact that the UUPthe hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) is now its sole representativedoes not attract Short money, and neither she nor I would suggest that it should do so. However, there is a paradox, is there not? She comes and plays a full part in the House and contributes to the debate and so on, but the party that does not attend will get the new allowance.

Peter Hain: My hon. Friend makes a very fair point. Will he consider a point that is at the heart of the distinction between parliamentary and representative activities, about which he is quite properly concerned? Is it permissible for the Leader of the Opposition, for example, to make a speech outside Parliamenthe has been doing that quite properly in recent weeksthat was written and drafted by a researcher who was funded by Short money? [Interruption.] Of course it is permissible. Conservative Members have just confirmed that. However, the speech must be made as part of the job of Leader of the Opposition. My hon. Friend therefore needs to be a little careful in making such a distinction when the Short money itself is quite carefully prescribed.

Andrew MacKinlay: I would not be starting from here. The ground rules for Short money are still insufficient.
	I have been invited to respond to my right hon. Friend's example, and I cite the case of the Prime Minister delivering speeches that were prepared wholly or in part by someone who was funded wholly or in part by Short money. The difficulty is identifying that. However, the Prime Minister does turn up here and he utters the same mantra in Sedgefield as here. I have never had the benefit of being a Ministeryetbut I imagine that each speech made by Ministers is not custom built. Much of the material for a speech delivered here is used for a speech made in Neath, Sedgefield or anywhere else.

Lembit �pik: It strikes me that we are trying to define something that we do not need to worry about today. The principle surely is that Short money cannot be spent on anything for which there are restrictions. Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that, as long as the Hoon money is very clearly defined, that will resolve that issue? Does the hon. Gentleman also accept that one of the problems with the contribution of the Leader of the House was that he was incredibly focused on Sinn Fein? As the hon. Gentleman rightly points out, the proposal sets a precedent. Will he be looking, as I am, for the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to confirm that he really grasps that this about a principle and not specifically about Sinn Fein?

Andrew MacKinlay: The hon. Gentleman needs to join me in the Division Lobby to defeat motion 3. We could send the homework back and the Government could return with strict ground rules that had been discussed and on which all the political parties and House authorities had been consulted.
	I want to deal with the question of consultation. Who has the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland consulted, and where and when? Has he consulted the House authorities and elected officials such as Mr.Speaker and members of the Administration Committee, who run our finances? Which political parties have been consulted? It is a matter of courtesy, common sense and right that there should be full consultation, as that might enable us to set the ground rules for what the Conservative party and other parties can spend the money on? If there is a facility for Sinn Fein, ground rules would also make clear what it can spend the money on.
	The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland invited me to consider the example of the Leader of the Opposition. Some of his speeches would be delivered here and others elsewhere. The point is that Sinn Fein cannot even remotely do that; there is no fig leaf to suggest that it could. In fairnessI use the word fairness for want of a better termto Sinn Fein, it will not be able to demonstrate in its accounts how the money is identified as Westminster money. That cannot be done. Its policies form a seamless robe because its mandate is pan-Ireland. It simply does not carve things up into Northern Ireland matters.

Peter Robinson: May we return to what will happen as a result of the Government's largesse? There are three Members on the SDLP Bench behind the hon. Gentleman[Interruption.] There are now three. The proposal will not affect my colleagues and I because there is a very small swing vote between Sinn Fein and the Democratic Unionist party, but the funds for those three Members will be tied to their work for the Committees of the House and in the Chamber. Sinn Fein's target, on the other hand, will be to take the seats of those three hon. Gentlemen.

Andrew MacKinlay: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. In the past, on the margins, I have been critical of our colleagues from the SDLP. However, we do not often acknowledge the way in which the Social Democratic and Labour parliamentary party plays a full and proud part in the work of the House. I acknowledge that unreservedly, as well as the fact that SDLP Members have bravely borne the problems of many years, along with other elected representatives. They follow a tradition in the House of being not only proud nationalists, but good parliamentarians. If you glance up at the back of our Chamber, Madam Deputy Speaker, you will see a red crest. I salute it every day because it represents Willie Redmond, a proud nationalist Member of Parliament. He was the oldest officer killed on the western front and a Member of the House of Commons who attended the House of Commons. The hon. Members for South Down (Mr.   McGrady), for Foyle (Mark Durkan) and for Belfast, South (Dr. McDonnell) keep up that tradition today.
	A suggestion made by the Secretary of State and the Leader of the House might have influenced my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr. Anderson), although I hope to get him to pause and reflect. My right hon. Friends said that the peace process must go on and that it has been a great success. Enormous advances have been made and I am proud of the changes that have come about in Northern Ireland. I have a selfish interest in Northern Ireland because my wife and I intend to retire therea long time from now, I must add, and after many more elections. The place has transformed, and we need to talk it up because, in many respects, it is one of the safest places in western Europe, as well as one of the most beautiful. It has a lot going for it and I am proud of what has been achieved. However, the suggestion that the peace process is predicated on the new allowance for Sinn Fein stretches credulity to the limit. One can just imagine the president of Sinn Fein lying awake in bed at night thinking, If I can get money in lieu of Short money, the peace process will advance.

Peter Hain: I am not suggesting that.

Andrew MacKinlay: I do not mean this unkindly, but that was certainly the implication and the tenor of what my good friend, my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon, said. I wholly endorse the motion on the restoration of moneys and hope that hon. Members will support it because it arguably relates to the IMC report, but the extraordinary new allowance is not justified.

Jeremy Corbyn: Will my hon. Friend look to the horizon a little? Does he not think that if we approve the motions we will help a confidence-building process that will develop the democratic involvement of a lot of people in Northern Ireland, rather than encourage them to go in the other direction? Does he not see the motions as part of the wider process that he already correctly supports?

Andrew MacKinlay: The answer is no in relation to motion 3. The motion does not advance the process at all. It is an affront to the SDLP and other political parties, and it will blur the situation. It has all the chemistry to produce confusion and false accusations against a party's stewardship. It will create a feeling of discrimination and the thinking that different rules apply from one party to another. Motion 3 should be rejected, and the Secretary of State and Leader of the House can come back on another occasion with new ground rules for Short money, if necessary, following consultation with all the authorities. It is our duty to reject motion 3 so that it can be reflected on and rethought.

Several hon. Members: rose

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Many hon. Members are hoping to catch my eye. Perhaps they could make their comments brief so that more will be able to contribute to the debate.

Patrick Cormack: I shall do my best to obey your injunction, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to live up to what I said when I expressed the view that the debate would benefit from short, succinct contributions.
	The first thing we have to recognise is that we are not debating the peace process. It is wrong and, indeed, unworthy of Ministers or anyone else to suggest that those who have misgivings about the two motions are opposed to peace and normality being brought to the lovely Province. That is what every honest and honourable Member of the House wishes to see. We are not debating that.
	I should like to say briefly in parenthesis that if we were debating the peace process, I would have to point out that things are not as rosy as they look. Chairing the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee's current inquiry into organised crime, I am aware, from the evidence received up to now, of the considerable involvement in organised crime by paramilitaries on both sides. The peace process has a long way to go. I wish the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland well. He knows that. I would do anything that I legitimately could to help him to bring proper honourable and true peace to Northern Ireland, but we are some way off that, and we are some way off the restoration of the Assembly, which I also wish to see.
	What we are talking about is how we treat those who are elected to this place and who choose not to come here. I met Mr. Conor Murphy and some of his Sinn Fein colleagues on my first familiarisation visit as Chairman of the Committee in September last year. I said, You and your colleagues have five seats in the Westminster Parliament. You are entitled to a seat on the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee. You tell us you are embracing democracy and renouncing terrorism. You tell us that you wish to be treated on all fours with other politicians. Well, then, why don't you take your seats, argue your case, sit on the Committee, and behave like those hon. Members representing the SDLP and the two Unionist parties, and play a proper part in Westminster. There is not an hon. Member who would not welcome that. There would be vigorous debate and strong argument, but we would welcome the fact that they performed that constitutional duty. But no, they still wish to behave as did the first woman elected to the House, Countess Markiewicz, and not to take their seats.
	That is the right of Sinn Fein's Members. If that is they way they want to behave, it is up to them.

Jeremy Corbyn: rose

Patrick Cormack: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, who is looking increasingly like a combination of George V and Mellors the gamekeeper.

Jeremy Corbyn: I am usually accused of looking like George Bernard Shaw.
	Those people who were elected as Sinn Fein Members were elected on the basis that they would not take the Oath and would not take their seats in the House. Constance Markiewicz was elected on the same basis. Therefore, the logic of the hon. Gentleman's position is that they should not be allowed to take any representative function because they have not taken an Oath of Allegiance because they do not believe in that Oath.

Patrick Cormack: The hon. Gentleman is trying to have it both ways. Like Countess Constance Markiewicz, the Members that we are talking about were elected. That is fine. Their electorates knew that their stated position was not to take their places in the House. That is fine. If the majority of the electorate wished in that way to emasculate themselves and to deny themselves representation, that is part of democracy. However, there is no duty incumbent upon the House to vote allowances to Members who are not fulfilling their constitutional duty within and around the House.

Laurence Robertson: Does not my hon. Friend feel that the real losers in the constituencies concerned are those who do not vote for Sinn Fein yet end up with no representation in the House because of the decision of Sinn Fein?

Patrick Cormack: Of course. We have our system of democracy and I believe in it. Like all systems, it is imperfect and sometimes one has to accept the rough with the rough. The fact is that these Members decided not to take their seats. I deeply regret that. I believe that they would demonstrate proper democratic credentials if they did take their seats, but they do not. We are discussing whether they, having decided deliberately to absent themselves, should be given allowances such as we are able to have.
	Misguidedlyto me, it is a matter of principlethe House decided in its wisdom, or otherwise, to support the Government when these people were given allowances. I was completely in support of Madam Speaker Boothroyd's judgment. It seemed to me that there could not be associate and second-class Members. I do not believe that anything changed between her decision and the House coming to its decision, but there we are. Then we had the spectacle of the Secretary of State withdrawing the allowances because of the involvement in the Northern bank robbery. I thought that that was a wise decision, and obviously supported it. Now the right hon. Gentleman comes to usnot really on the strength of the IMC reportand says, I want you not just to reinstate the allowances but to backdate them to November.
	If the right hon. Gentleman truly believes that he or his colleagues have made a commitment that obliges him to do that, he would cover himself with more honour if he came to the Dispatch Box and said, I am formally moving the motions. There are no Whips on; it is totally free vote territory. It is up to the House of Commons to debate and to decide. That would be keeping faith with the promise that in my view was ill-advisedly but honourably given, and it would be behaving in an entirely sensible manner, and the House would decide.
	As it is, the Government are seeking to manipulate the use of House of Commons money by giving these people allowances. Then, piling Pelion upon Ossa, it is said, That is not enough. We will give you some other money as well.
	As we have debated, this is not Short money as we currently know and understand it. This is a separate pot of money. A couple of weeks ago, the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) said that it was Hain money. However, this afternoon, Members have said that it is Hoon money. Whether it is Hoon money or Hain money, I know that it is taxpayers' money. If the House is misguided enough to pass the motion, taxpayers' money will be given to a group of people who have amassed more ill-gotten gains than almost any political party in the history of western Europe.
	This seems to be both unnecessary and wrong. If Mr. Adams and Mr. McGuiness had walked into the city hall in Belfast and deposited 26 million and said, Here, you can have it back. We have no further use for it. We have washed our hands of dreadful methods. I think that I would put up my hands and say, Yes, all right, you can have a bit of Short money. However, I would still not want them to have the other money because they do not come to the Chamber.
	Does the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, who is a serious, honourable and sensible man, expect the House to believe that there is a need for that money? Of course, there is not. I implore him, even if he persists in pressing the other motion, to heed the good sense eloquently advanced by the hon. Member for Thurrock and not to push the Short motion until the Government have redefined it and returned to the House to prove that they are not inadvertently arguing for preferential treatment for the only party that does not take its seats in the House. That is a matter of logic and common sense. I have got that off my chest in 11 minutes, with two interventions, and I hope that that will allow other colleagues to be called.

Mark Durkan: We need to remember that we are considering two motions. They are very different, and in debating them, there is cross-reference between them and things are confused and conflated. However, we need to remember that those motions are distinct.
	Motion 4 is the more straightforward of the two, as it deals with the question of restoring allowances removed in a motion on sanctions introduced in the House last March. That motion was tabled after a report by the Independent Monitoring Commission, and it extended the sanctions recommended by the IMC following the withdrawal of Assembly allowances and the Northern bank robbery. The Social Democratic and Labour party has never agreed that the IMC should have a role, power or function in drawing up or recommending sanctions against particular parties. We agreed with the concept of a monitoring commission that would examine any issue of concern raised by any party or anyone else about paramilitary activities or about parties failing to honour their political commitments under the Good Friday agreement to work with the institutions in a proper way. We therefore agreed that a monitoring commission should have such a role.
	In 2003, we argued at Hillsborough that the two Governments should not include sanctions in the role of the monitoring commission. We suggested that it take a solution-based approach, not a sanction-based one in which parties would sue one another and cite one another's activities in an effort to achieve sanctions. In a solution-based approach, by contrast, all parties would have a collective responsibility to face up to problems, propose solutions and take shared responsibility for them. That position, however, was not accepted, so legislation was introduced in the House to establish the commission and give it the power of sanction. We did not support that legislation, because we believed that, yet again, the Governments were making a mistake in the management of the process.
	Whenever motions were introduced in the House to impose sanctions on Sinn Fein, SDLP Members abstained from voting. Similarly, we will abstain from the vote to lift those sanctions, not because we oppose the return of allowances to Sinn Fein so that its Members can work on behalf of their constituents but because that is consistent with our position that we are not in the business of sanctions. Our position has been misrepresented by Sinn Fein, who keep saying that we supported a power of sanction for the IMC. We did not do so, and that is why we will abstain from the vote on motion 4. I will not do anything to discourage hon. Members on both sides of the House from going into the   Lobby to support that motion, because it aims to ensure that Sinn Fein Members can conduct their representative business on behalf of their constituents. The hon. Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) spoke about the way in which hon. Members conduct their business, and said that the allowances that we are paid do not all relate to what we do in the Chamber but to the meetings, correspondence and activities in which we engage. That will be covered by motion 4 on an equal basis with all other hon. Members in the House. The hon. Gentleman made a good argument for motion 4, but in his intervention he was not making a relevant argument in respect of motion 3.
	As someone who believes in equality and in the quality of democratic representation, I have no issue with people who live in Sinn Fein-held constituencies knowing that their MPs have the same allowance as any other MP, which allows them to engage in day-to-day representative business. I do not want anyone to be denied representation. I will make my arguments against Sinn Fein's manifesto and their representative quality at elections, but once the electorate has decided, we should all have the allowance available to us for our representative business.
	Motion 3 is different. We knew from what the Secretary of State had said in response to a previous IMC report that a motion would be tabled to restore allowances at Westminster. We all knew that. What we did not know was that there was a bonus ball in the drawthat Sinn Fein Members would get the Short money too. That emerged only last week, yet from briefings to colleagues, it seems that it goes back to an earlier deal or understanding between the Government and Sinn Fein.
	For weeks the Secretary of State and his Ministers have been assuring us that the odyssey of side deals is overthat we are no longer on that pub crawl of preconditions, demands and side deals that get in the way of progress and debase the very name of the peace process. We are told that that is no longer happening, but lo and beholdwhat do we get? More of the same.
	On Short money, the Leader of the House gave us a farrago of confusion. He told us that this was new money. He used the phrase new moneynew funds. He told us that it was not Short money. In reply to hon. Members on the Conservative Benches, he contradicted them and said it was not Short money. Then he said it was the same as Short money; it would be like Short money. Later he said no, it would not be like Short money.
	The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik), who unfortunately is not with us, said that he wanted Ministers to reassure the House. So far Ministers have not done so. They have just made me even more concerned than I was. It is up to the House to reassure itself on these matters. If any of us have any doubts as a result of the confusion, we should vote against motion 3 and ask the House authorities or the Government to table something better.
	There is confusion, as matters stand, even about Short money. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire said that different parties had tested the line on it. When, as a new Member of the House and the leader of a party in the House, I inquired about the guidelines for Short money, I was told by Officers of the House that there is very little. They said that they would send me what there is, and not much came to me in the post. There is a genuine need for the House to re-examine funding for Opposition parties. That could take in representative work, as well as parliamentary work, so that all of us could look equally at the distinction between parliamentary work and representative work. Perhaps then all parties, on an equal basis, could have the benefit of an allowance that they could use for either or both purposes.
	I advocate that we sort the issue out, taking in the position of Sinn Fein as well as other parties. That is the right and proper way of doing things. It would give equal treatment to all parties.

Lady Hermon: May I clarify an issue arising from the hon. Gentleman's speech? In the early part of his contribution, he made it clear that he does not approve of sanctions if Sinn Fein overstep the mark. If the accounting officer every nine months is unable to give Sinn Fein a clean bill of health about how they have spent their so-called allowance for representative purposes, would the hon. Gentleman support sanctions in those circumstances?

Mark Durkan: The hon. Lady has made a separate point about sanctions. The misuse of funds voted for by this House is clearly a proper matter for this House to pursue, because if anyone misuses funds, appropriate measures must be taken.
	I have been discussing political difficulties in the peace process. When the Government introduced the IMC, they went for a sanctions-based approach. We had an issue with that approach, but it was not because we were afraid of imposing sanctions on Sinn Fein or of doing things separately from Sinn Feinour position on policing shows that we have no problem with doing things differently from Sinn Fein. Our honourable position on the Northern Ireland (Offences) Bill, which has been vindicated, also shows that we have no problem doing things differently from and standing up to Sinn Feinfor example, we pointed out the sleazy deals struck between Sinn Fein and the Government.
	We could not accept that sanctions were the long-term answer to the problems in the peace process. We did not like the Government's idea of a menu of sanctions, because, as Seamus Mallon said in this House on a previous occasion, when the sanctions were set against the scale of criminality and the potential profit from racketeering, we were discussing a small licence fee for criminality, which was not much of a windfall tax given all the robberies for which the IRA has been indicted. We never got into that territory, because we thought it wrong and misguided.
	On Short money, the Government are now seeking to get the House to give Sinn Fein a gratuitous bonus. We should consider how Short money can be used to extend some benefits to Sinn Fein on an equal basis to other political parties, and I ask hon. Members to vote against motion 3 on the Order Paper to allow that to happen.
	The Northern Ireland Bill will be published next week. Among other things, it will make provisions on donations and fundraising in respect of party political funding. Although the Government's proposal is out of turn, I want the Government to allow us to go through the Bill and examine the implications for all parties on funding. We should also examine the fairness of introducing a bespoke fund for Sinn Fein in that light. All hon. Members should be wary of bespoke, ad hoc funding for one party in any circumstances.
	Some hon. Members have said that the peace process rests on that issue, but they used the same verbal formula on the Northern Ireland (Offences) Bill, when they suggested that the sky would fall in if the values, spirit and concerns of victims were upheld. The Northern Ireland (Offences) Bill has fallen by the wayside, but is the peace process in crisis? No; the political landscape is a lot better and the situation is more encouraging.
	A number of hon. Members have cited the IMC report and the Decommissioning Commission report, which are relevant to not only this debate, but, hopefully, political developments in the coming months. The IMC report is positive, and I wish that DUP Members would face up to the progress that it identifies on the IRA's desisting from a range of activities. Equally, Sinn Fein and the Government must face up to the ongoing problems that that report underlines. For their own purposes, both Sinn Fein and the DUP exaggerated their reactions to the IMC report, which gave people the impression that it is far more negative than it actually is.
	Hon. Members should have no particular concern about voting for motion 4 on the Order Paper, but they should think long and hard about motion 3, because we can better address Short money, Sinn Fein and equality of funding for Northern Ireland political parties.
	I am conscious that in any overall review of Short money we need to consider the invidious position that is created for the Ulster Unionist party, which, with the same number of Assembly Members as Sinn Fein and a vote share slightly larger than ours, finds itself without Short money, policy money, and so on. That puts it in a difficult position. It has to carry out all sorts of representative activities and duties without the benefit of the parliamentary allowances that Sinn Fein has.
	If we are to consider this on the basis of equity, fair play, justice and diversity, we need to take a position that is more than just a fix-up for Sinn Fein alone. Too much of this process has been based on the Government fixing things for Sinn Fein. The right hon. Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth) recalled sitting on the Government Benches for 26 hours defending the Disqualifications Bill, which was introduced for the purposes of Sinn Fein alone and to suit its particular party political designs. Time and again, in key negotiations Sinn Fein negotiates not for a variety of people, nor for the community at large in Northern Ireland, nor even for the nationalist and republican community in Northern Ireland, but for itself. That is why we get key demands centring on funding for Sinn Fein, offices for Sinn Fein and the on-the-runs legislation.

Gregory Campbell: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that given what he is saying every Northern Ireland Member attending this House should vote against motion 3 and the Government should pay very close attention to that unanimous opposition?

Mark Durkan: In the spirit of its being a free vote, I cannot speak for every Northern Ireland Member who is here, but I hope that the point is not lost on the Government.

Peter Robinson: The hon. Gentleman should not worrythe hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) will vote with him.

Mark Durkan: I am sure that he will.

Peter Robinson: What about the other one?

Mark Durkan: He will, too, although whether in the same Lobby as me is another matter. He will be with me after the vote, if nothing else.
	We have had evidence of all the different fix-ups suiting Sinn Fein and its purposes. Even the Taoiseach indicated that the deal-breaker for Sinn Fein in one of the key deals did not concern institutions, inclusion or equality, but securing the release of certain prisoners in a jail in the Irish Republicthose who had killed Garda McCabe. We see time and again that Sinn Fein negotiates for itself and for its own. At some point the Government should tell Sinn Fein where to get off. If this is being done in the name of a wider democratic peaceful processsomething that is going to give us all a greater good that we should participate init is on those terms and those alone that the party should come forward with its demands and preconditions. The Government are sending a very dangerous signal in continuing this approach.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North tries to defend this on the grounds that we have to do questionable things that people may not like in the name of confidence-building. The Democratic Unionist party came into talks on Monday with six demands, all couched in the name of confidence-building, saying that unless they were granted, the talks could not start. In terms of confidence-building, one has to throw a six to start before one gets anything. I would advise my hon. Friend to be very careful about where the confidence-building ticket may lead. What goes around comes around in this process, unfortunately.
	If the Government are telling us that new factors have created this need for new money, they should inform the House that we need to consider them in the context of a review of Short money; I am sure, on the basis of the debate so far, that the House would be able to do that. They should not give the House the bum's rush and say that we have to pay Short money for short arms as a form of Haingeld, as Members will no doubt end up calling it. This is a bad way for the House to conduct itself as regards the key issue of moneys that it votes to its own Members. The House should be more judicious about its own procedures, and is certainly entitled to ask the Government to be more circumspect in their dealings with Sinn Fein in the name of the peace process.

David Wilshire: I apologise to the House for not being present for the whole of the debate. I had a medical appointment that I did not want to break. I would not recommend anyone to have their blood pressure checked during one of these debates.
	For those Members who have not been in the House as long as others, there is always some sort of curiosity when an English MP weighs into a Northern Ireland debate.

Douglas Hogg: This is not essentially a Northern Ireland debate; it is a debate about the rights and privileges of Members of Parliament. That is a matter of Parliament, not of Northern Ireland.

David Wilshire: I understand entirely my right hon. and learned Friend's point. I am going to talk about Northern Ireland, however, even if the matter is a general one. I speak and always have done so because I am an absolutely unapologetic Unionist, and I see a Unionist argument in this general matter. Members who have been in the House for as long as I have will know that I have had a long, 10-year, detailed involvement in these matters, and that I have been on the receiving end of interest from Sinn Fein-IRA as to my whereabouts. I have been around this course before, and make no apologies for going round it once more.
	My purpose is to do my level best to persuade the House to reject both the motions. I hear the arguments about one, and about the other. My argument, however, is in favour of rejecting both. I am not about to make an attack on the current Government in this matter. I have attacked successive Governments for what I see as the appeasement of Sinn Fein-IRA. Mine is not a party political contribution. Nor is it an attack on those who want a united Ireland. I count among my friends members of the SDLP, and it is totally honourable to want a united Ireland by peaceful and democratic means. I disagree with that end, but I respect it, so I am not about to go down that route either.
	My opposition is simply born of the fact that I have witnessed, in my time as a Member of Parliament, successive Governments treating murderous thugs such as Adams and McGuinness as though they are respectable politicians. That is what I cannot stomach. I am opposed generally, on behalf of the whole House, I hope, to the House giving special benefits to terrorists. I am against the House trying to bribe armed people into making more pretty well meaningless gestures. I am against the House paying those terrorists for publicity stunts such as so-called decommissioning.
	Whenever I hear a Minister trying to persuade the House to vote for things such as those for which we are being asked to vote tonight, I always hear a case based on special pleading. Recently, I heard that it is ever so sensible to release from prison Irish terrorists. At the same time, I heard the argument that is sensible to hunt down and lock up Muslim terrorists. I am blowed if I can see the difference. As I think about the issues before us tonight, I keep remembering that I have heard the argument advanced that it is a good idea to allow armed terrorists into the Northern Ireland Assembly, because, by some magical process, it will turn them into democrats. At the same time, I hear the argument advanced that it is awful that Hamas armed terrorists have won an election in Palestine, and that they cannot possibly become the Government until such time as they disarm.
	Whenever I join in debates about Northern Ireland and Sinn Fein-IRA, I am deeply conscious of the hurt caused to the victims of terrorism, not only by these debates but by the matters that give rise to them. I am at a loss to understand why Governments in this country consider it acceptable to cause hurt to victims of terrorism in Northern Ireland in the name of progress. I imagine that the same Government would not for a moment consider giving money to the masterminds behind the bombings in the tubes in London last year. I simply do not understand why on the one hand we are asked to do things that, on the other, we are told are wrong.
	I have no doubt that the overwhelming majority of my constituents will be appalled at the concept of British taxpayers' moneytheir money, not the Government'sbeing used to fund terrorists, and to fund criminals. I think that it is an offence to my constituents to be asked to provide allowances and offices in this Parliament for people who have tried to blow up this Parliamentpeople who have actually killed Members of Parliament within these precincts. My constituents will find that offensive.
	I think that my constituents will also find it offensive that we are now being asked to give even more money to those people so that they can continue their terrorism and their crime. We shall be able to read the opening speech by the Leader of the House in Hansard, but I think I heard it suggested that this constituted something of a reward for decommissioning. If that is the argument, I can only guess that it represents an attempt to give those people money so that they can buy replacements following the stunt in which they became involved; but if that is the justification being offered for what we are being asked to do, it is a disgrace. I hope the whole House understands that.
	What we are being asked to do, when we vote tonight, is make yet another one-sided concession to terrorism and to crime masquerading as Sinn Fein-IRA. I think that both motions are deeply offensive. They are deeply offensive to the victims of Sinn Fein-IRA violence. According to my reading of themalthough perhaps the SDLP will tell me differentthey are deeply offensive to democratic nationalists in Northern Ireland. Most certainly, the motions and the proposals are deeply offensive to the British taxpayer.

Peter Bone: My hon. Friend is making an excellent and powerful speech. Does he agree that if the Government advanced a proposal that discriminated in favour of one party in the House other than Sinn Fein, there would be uproar and it would be rejected?

David Wilshire: I am sure that my hon. Friend is absolutely right. We should bear in mind that there is no need whatever for either of the motions if we are arguing that we should all be treated as equals. All that Sinn Fein-IRA Members need do is turn up, and they will be treated like the rest of us. The motions are superfluous, and they make it easier for those Members to behave as they do.
	I know that others wish to speak, so I shall not continue at length. Those who have heard me speak before will know that I have always opposed the payment of allowances, so there is no need for me to rehearse the arguments; I shall merely vote against it again. Now, however, we are being asked to do something else: to approve what I suspect will come to be known as Hoon money. This new allowance plumbs new depths of appeasement of terror. I never believed when I came to the House 18 years ago that I would live to see the day when the House would be asked to put psychopathic murderers on its payroll.

Jeremy Corbyn: I shall be brief because I recognise that other Members wish to speak; most of them are from the Democratic Unionist party, and I would not wish them to be silenced.
	We are discussing two issues here today. One is democracy; the other is the progress of the peace process in Northern Ireland. Members are elected to this House because they have stood for election and a majority of those who voted sent them here to be Members of Parliament. As was mentioned in an intervention by the hon. Member forwherever

Patrick Cormack: South Staffordshire.

Jeremy Corbyn: South Staffordshirehow could I forget, as I used to live near there? I do apologise.
	In a discussion with the hon. Gentleman earlier, we raised the issue of Members being elected, having made it clear during the election process that they had no intention of taking their seats because they were not prepared to take the Oath. However, those Members still have a responsibility to represent their constituentswhether they voted for them or notas we all do. It therefore seems entirely logical that one should give them sufficient resources and allowances to carry on the representative process. Furthermore, they are all from one party, and that party has political responsibilities in relation to the Government and to the agencies of the Government here and in Northern Ireland. Those Members should therefore be entitled to exactly the same resourcesit is called Short money, but I understand that it might be renamed Hoon moneyas Members from any other party, so that they can carry out their representative work.

Philip Hollobone: I am not familiar with the situation in the Northern Ireland Assembly, but if someone were elected to be a Member of the Assembly and failed to turn up, would they be entitled to their allowances? Under regulations introduced by the Secretary of State for Wales, if someone were elected to the Welsh Assembly and did not turn up, they would have to vacate their seat and would not be eligible for any allowances. Similarly, if I did not turn up to meetings of my local borough council, I would have to vacate my seat and I would not be entitled to any allowances.

Jeremy Corbyn: What we are discussing is a matter for this Parliament. It is a national Parliament and a sovereign Parliament. It is an autonomous body, not a golf club. Once people have been elected as Members, if they do not turn up, that is a matter for them and for their constituents. It is a matter that can be addressed by the electorate at another time. We do not have the ability to force people to attend the House after they have been elected. That surely is a product of history.

Gregory Campbell: The hon. Gentleman has alluded, not for the first time, to the perfect right of people to vote for a member of Sinn Fein or anyone else standing on an abstentionist ticket. People have a perfect right to do that, but does the hon. Gentleman accept that they should do so in the knowledge that if they elect an abstentionist, there will be no allowances for that person? If a Member wishes to carry out their representative duty in those conditions, that is their right, but we should not change the rules after they have been elected.

Jeremy Corbyn: Sinn Fein Members who have been elected to this House do not receive any payment because they do not take their seats. Until recently, they did not receive any allowances either. Agreement was then reached, following a debate in the House, that they should receive allowances in order to carry out their representative work in Parliament. Electors may vote for someone who has already announced that they will not take their seat in the House, but that does not mean that the Member is not going to represent those people. The Member has merely said that they will not take their seat. Historically, this goes back to 1918 when Connie Markiewicz was electedironically, from my constituency; I think I am right in saying that she was in Holloway prison at the timeto represent Dublin, Central. She could not, and did not, take her seat. Nor did the other Sinn Fein MPs of the time. That was the tradition. Nevertheless, such MPs have a duty to represent peopleas does every other Memberwhich involves dealing with correspondence, agencies, the Government and all the rest of it.

Patrick Cormack: Of course they do, and of course they can, but we are not obliged to give them the kind of allowances that the hon. Gentleman qualifies for only when he properly takes his seat.

Jeremy Corbyn: The House has already voted on the issue of allowancessome time ago, in fact. They were suspended last year and we are now reinstating them. We have already established and agreed the principle that elected representatives do not get paid if they do not take the Oath, but that they do get the resources needed to represent all their constituents. Today we are reaffirming that principle, but we are also saying that a political party has a right to resources in order to represent its cause to the Government or to anybody else.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) and others have expressed the view that such resources should be used only for parliamentary purposes. I do not doubt that the accounts showing the expenditure of Short money by all the Opposition parties are very carefully scrutinised, but when a researcher writes a speech for a leading Opposition Member and it is delivered in the House, that same information is often then used in a public meeting, in a meeting with Ministers or in negotiations with agencies. We cannot distinguish between material prepared for use in the Chamber and material used in furtherance of parliamentary representation. We should therefore support the motions before us tonight.
	I have been in this House for just about as long as anybody present in the Chamberone or two may have been Members for slightly longer, but I have been one for some timeand I recall a time during the 1980s when this House decided that a broadcasting ban and a travel ban on Sinn Fein and a number of other such measures would somehow further the cause of peace in Northern Ireland. To the credit of John Major and others, a ceasefire was agreed and a peace process developed. That process was built on through the establishment of the Good Friday agreement and all that has happened since.
	Of course the situation in Northern Ireland is not perfect, but it is an awful lot better than it was, because there is something approaching a political process. The Secretary of State said that he wanted the Assembly and the Executive to be re-established and I support him in that, but it is up to the Democratic Unionist party and other parties to ensure that they are re-established. At some point, if it is serious about the restoration of devolved power to Northern Ireland, the DUP will have to treat with other parties, whether or not it likes them or agrees with them. It knows that, and we know that.
	We also know that what we are being asked to do today is part of a wider process. We are saying to those who have elected Sinn Fein MPs, We recognise your vote, your right to representation and your support for that party, so resources will be allowed for you to be represented, but salaries will not be allowed to those MPs because they do not take their seats. So there is a great deal of logic behind this process.
	Agreeing to the motions today might just help toward restoring the Assembly and the Executive in Northern Ireland. A political process, however difficult, and political conflict, however deep, is surely far better than people being killed on the streets, however much hatred existed, and perhaps still exists, between people. We should look to the future and to some form of hope for the people of Northern Ireland. Today could be a very small step in that direction.

Douglas Hogg: I shall be brief, as I know that other right hon. and hon. Members want to speak. I find myself in agreement with some of what the hon. Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) has said. I make a distinction between the motion dealing with Short moneyHoon moneyand that dealing with allowances. I will not support the formerindeed, I will oppose itfor the reason pointed out by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) and others. There is a distinction, as it is currently presented to the House, between the benefits paid to the traditional Opposition parties and to Sinn Fein. I listened carefully to what the Leader of the House said, but I am also conscious of the wording of the 1975 resolution.
	The truth is that Short money should be paid only in connection with parliamentary business. I am perfectly willing to accept that there is an overlap between parliamentary and representative business. However, we are emphasising the gapinevitably, I thinkby using different language. Where language is different, it normally attracts different interpretations. The risk of accepting the Short money-Hoon money motion is that there will be a real disadvantage to the traditional Opposition parties, and a real and unfair benefit to Sinn Fein.
	For reasons that I shall set out in a moment, I am perfectly prepared to contemplate Short money-Hoon money going to Sinn Fein, provided that the same money is payable to the traditional Opposition parties, including my own. Therefore my suggestion to the Governmentit is similar to the points made by the hon. Members for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) and for Foyleis that the motion should be withdrawn and replaced by one that covers the entirety of such allowances payable to all Opposition parties. In that way, we can be sure that there is no differentiation of language and no risk of a different interpretation.
	I shall say no more about Short money-Hoon money, as I realise that time is short. I turn now to the question of allowances for Sinn Fein, about which I shall say something a little more controversial. I regret that, as he knows full well, I do not agree with my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) about this matter.
	I approach this debate as a monarchist, and that is important in the light of what I have to say about the Oath. I approach it also as a deeply committed Unionist, as I hope that members of the Unionist parties will accept. I am also a traditionalist and a Conservativebut above all, I am a parliamentarian.
	By what authority is any of us in this place? Our only legitimacy stems from the fact that we have been chosenperhaps imperfectlyby our electorates. That is as true of Sinn Fein Members as it is of any other hon. Member. The general proposition is that a person who is chosen as a Member of this House has obligations, but also the rights and benefits that flow from that choice. I say that it is a general proposition, because those entitlements fall away on disqualification, or perhaps suspension. Why are we seeking to deny Sinn Fein Members the benefits that attach to the rest of us?
	I acknowledge that they refuse to take the Oath, but I do not think that the Oath should be a precondition of sitting in the House. I am a monarchistthat is why I am making this pointand have no difficulty with taking the Oath, but I accept that republicanism is a perfectly proper political position. I suspect that many hon. Members, in the course of our history and perhaps today, have had to strain their consciences to take the Oath. I do not believe that we should ask people to do that.
	We should reformulate the Oath so that any honourable person can take it. It should not be attached to the monarchy, but should be expressed in some different way that we could discuss. Therefore I do not accept that a failure to take the Oath disqualifies Sinn Fein Members from receiving the allowances and benefits.
	A different question has been asked by my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire and others. Given that Sinn Fein Members do not participate, are they entitled to the allowances? However, the hon. Member for Islington, North got the matter wholly right, and all of us know that our parliamentary duties go far beyond what we do in this place.
	I have not been in the House as long as my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire, but I came here in 1979. I know that some hon. Members are very assiduous in the House, and that some hardly play any part at all. Some prefer to concentrate on their national or constituency duties: some of the most assiduous in this place make contributions of the least value, while some who come only occasionally make contributions of the greatest value.
	We have to recognise that important contributions are made outside the House. I would be prepared to accept that Sinn Fein Members do that in their constituency functions. They probably do write to Ministers, raise cases with the Inland Revenue and do all the other such things that you and I do, Mr. Deputy Speaker. That is a discharge of their duties, and they should be entitled to allowances for that reason.

Lady Hermon: Could the right hon. and learned Gentleman explain the situation to my father, who is 89 years old anddespite his agea very active farmer in County Tyrone in the Mid-Ulster constituency? In the absence of the Assembly, the only legislation that could affect my father will be passed in this House. How does Martin McGuinness, my father's MP, do anything to represent, either in parliamentary or representative terms, pensioners and farmers such as my father?

Douglas Hogg: I start from the fact that we do not have a perfect system. The position of the hon. Lady's father is not very different from the position of a committed Conservative in a constituency represented by a Labour Member. With the whipping system as it is, and given the practices and conventions to which we adhere, the majority of Labour Members would not table amendments that a Conservative voter would prefer. Sinn Fein Members may write to Ministers and make representations, but it is true that they do not articulate them on the Floor of the House. However, to the extent that I have outlined, their constituents are not in a position different from that of Conservative voters represented by Labour Members.

Patrick Cormack: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend

William Cash: Noble friend.

Patrick Cormack: It is true that he is a hereditary peer and, following recent changes, entitled to sit in this House. He is also very learned. However, he is not really doing justice to the role of Member of Parliament. Were the father of the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) to be represented by somebody who took their seat in this place, they would be able to raise his concerns in Adjournment debates and in other ways. Very few of us take any notice of the political affiliations of those who come to see us. If they are our constituents, we seek to help them regardless of whether they voted for us. I am sure that my right hon., learned and noble Friend is no different in that respect.

Douglas Hogg: I hope that my hon. Friend is right when he is so complimentary, and I believe that he is, for these purposes. But the truth is that Members of Parliament can articulate their constituents' anxieties in a variety of ways other than on the Floor of the House. The Floor of the House is one way of doing it, but it is not the only way. Although I am a fairly active parliamentarian, I suspect that it is not even the most important way.

William McCrea: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman not realise the difficulty? A Conservative voter may differ with their Labour Member of Parliament on certain issues, but that MP is not a terrorist. It would be very difficult for the hon. Lady's father to go to Martin McGuinness, who has been a member of the Army Council of the IRA, which has murdered people in that constituency.

Douglas Hogg: That may well be true, but it is true whether or not those Members take their seats. The fact that they do not take their seats does not address that particular difficulty.
	I accept that the principle that I have enunciated is capable of exceptions. The exception should be that when Members of Parliament have committed criminal offences so that they are disqualified, we are entitled to remove their allowances. When Members are suspended, because the House finds them guilty of misconduct, we are also entitled to take away the allowances. However, that happens after due process, when the allegations have been carefully examined. What we are doing now is using the giving and taking of allowances to further policy, and that undermines the status of Members of Parliament.
	I recognise that there is a diversity of opinion in the House, and that is healthy. However, I approach the matter as a parliamentarian who will assert that my only legitimacy in this place comes from the electorate. I find it difficult to make a distinction in principle between the process by which I was elected and the process that elected Sinn Fein Members. If that is true, Sinn Fein Members are entitled to the same rights and benefits as I am. That flows from the fact that they have been chosen by an electorate that knew full well that they would not sit in this place.

Peter Robinson: It has been said:
	All human errors are impatience, the premature breaking off of what is methodical.
	The Government's approach to the political process, specifically their confidence in the democratisation of Sinn Fein, has been characterised over the years by premature actions and excessive expectations. No action illustrates that over-eagerness more clearly than their seeking to restore allowances to republicans only days after a devastating IMC report.
	I say to the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan): DUP Members do not ignore the fact that the IMC noted that in some small areas there had been recognised improvements in terms of the republican movement, although there is nothing in the report indicating that such improvements will be permanent. In many areas, however, the report indicates that there is no improvement and that the leadership is heavily involved.
	Last year, the then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland said:
	In 1998, everyone thought that there would be a transitional period in which there would be a withering away . . . of criminality and all the other activities that paramilitaries get up to. However, the reality is that the robbery of the Northern bank and other activities show that it has not gone away.
	Announcing his intention to withdraw allowances from Sinn Fein, the right hon. Gentleman said that
	the measures that we are proposing are designed to express the disapproval of all those who are committed to purely democratic politics at the actions of the Provisional IRA.[Official Report, 22 February 2005; Vol. 431, c. 17179.]
	That was a logical position, but, given the damning report of the IMC last week, the people of Northern Ireland will wonder whether the Government no longer disapprove of IRA activitiesfor why else would republicans be rewarded by the House?
	At a time when the Provisional IRA is in the dog house, exposed on the international stage for its ongoing criminal activities, what message are the Government sending? Meanwhile, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is willing to issue threats to Assembly Members in Northern Ireland and those who staff their offices that he will remove their allowances. They are democratspeople to whom the IMC reports make no referenceserving their communities through a network of offices, yet they are expected to live with ongoing uncertainty about their employment.
	It is not as though the IMC report was lukewarm or vague about the Provisional IRA's involvement in criminality. Many observers were taken by surprise at the frankness of the report's description of the new phase of the IRA's activity. The report stated:
	Members of the Provisional IRA continue to be heavily involved in serious organised crime, including counterfeiting and the smuggling of fuel and tobacco . . . Senior members
	senior members, not somebody carrying out ad hoc activity for their own pocket
	are involved in money laundering and other crime . . . Not all PIRA's weapons and ammunition were handed over for decommissioning in September. The material goes beyond a limited number of handguns kept for personal protection.
	The Secretary of State might like to explain the following. The IICD report makes it clear that the commission had received evidence from UK intelligence sourcesMI5 and the PSNIthat the IRA had held on to weaponry. The IICD, having been caught out committing itself publicly to saying that all decommissioning had been completed, tried to find someone to support that belief. It went to the Provisional IRA. Of course, those in the Provisional IRA said, We have decommissioned all our weapons. It went to the Garda Siochana, who said that they had no such evidence in their jurisdiction, but that if the PSNI did it was clearly because it was in the United Kingdom jurisdiction.
	What did the IICD do? It had the choice to believe, as the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland does, either MI5 and the PSNI or the IRA. The IICD chose to believe the Provisional IRA, and I am glad to say that the IMC did not. I was glad to hear Lord Alderdice, the former Speaker of the Northern Ireland Assembly, very clearly indicate that he could not agree with the IICD's judgment.
	The IMC report says that the Provisional IRA
	continues to engage in intelligence gathering, and has no present intention of doing otherwise. This is an activity we believe is authorised by the leadership and which involves some very senior members.
	The report continues:
	It involves efforts to penetrate public and other institutions with the intention of illegally obtaining or handling sensitive information. The organisation continues to accumulate information about individuals and groups, including members of the security forces.
	Is it the Government's clear view that the allowances contained in the two motions should be returned to an organisation with a CV that has been outlined by the IMC report?
	The notion that ongoing IRA criminality is down to a handful of individuals, far removed from the republican leadership, has been dispelled. The illegality comes not from one or two on the fringes; it goes right to the very top of the republican movement. The information that I have quoted about intelligence gathering is probably the most directly relevant to the House.
	Hon. Members should not forget that a republican spy ring at Stormont brought down the old Assembly in Northern Ireland three and a half years ago. Furthermore, within the last week, Ministers in the Irish Republic, including the Minister for Defence, and elected representatives in the Dil were ordered by their parties to check out of and not return to a popular Dublin hotel on account of evidence of IRA surveillance activities at the hotel. While the IRA is brazenly continuing to gather intelligence targeted at public institutions, surely it would be ridiculous for the House to vote to restore allowances to those republicans, some of whom are the leaders who control those very activities.
	The Government's fascination with applying the allowances raises the question of whether anything could have appeared in the eighth IMC report about IRA activity that would have dissuaded the Government from following such a foolish course of action. Is it only when the IRA is found to have been behind a 26.5 million robbery that it is deemed appropriate that allowances should be withheld? Yet, under the motions, the Government are reducing the sanction that they set for that offence and setting no sanction for all the crimes that have been committed since.
	The proceeds of the Northern bank raidthe largest ever in the British isleshave still not been recovered. They are retained by the republican movement, and the IRA has done nothing to assist in the recovery of that cashin fact, it has done the opposite. Holding and using the proceeds of a bank robbery is a continuing crime.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am happy with the hon. Gentleman's remarks so far, but he will be aware that that case is now sub judice. As long as his remarks are of a general nature, I am happy to allow them, but I would not want him to go into too much detail about that case.

Peter Robinson: I am happy to comply, Mr. Deputy SpeakerI am all the more happy, because I have only one more sentence to deliver in relation to the case: rather than punish republicans for that continuing crime, the Government want to reward them.
	It has now been revealed that, over several years, senior IRA figures have accumulated massive wealth. Its finance director, Des Mackin, now owns property worth more than 1.75 million. He has a conviction for IRA membership in the mid-1980s and served as Sinn Fein's treasurer. He, along with the Belfast tycoon, Peter Curistan, are the two co-directors of numerous companies, seven of which were prosecuted in the district court in Dublin recently for failing to keep proper accounts.
	Instead of rewarding republicans for criminality, the Government should address the involvement of such men in government initiatives. Curistan is the key private sector investor behind Belfast's flagship 100 million Odyssey centre in my East Belfast constituency. Many of us have been aware of Mr.   Curistan and his business activities and, until recently, I believe that most people believed that they were legitimate. Given recent reports, I believe that they will consider that that is not the case. His Sheridan Group was awarded a massive development contract in June 2005 by the Laganside Corporation, which is a public body, for residential provision, offices, a hotel, niche retail outlets, waterfront cafs and other leisure facilities, together with parking. When he winds up, will the Secretary of State ensure that the activities of the Sheridan Group and its association with the IRA's dirty money are fully investigated? Will he guarantee that no further public money is channelled in its direction until, if ever, it gets a clean bill of health?
	I have already referred to the security concerns in Dublin over a popular city centre hotel, which is thought to be run by the Provisional IRA It is used by Irish Government Ministers and others during their working week. A senior republican who is originally from Armagh is the main owner of that hotel. He had his home and businesses raided last week by the Irish police, and files searched in the offices of his solicitors and accountants. This particular individual has a collective property portfolio valued in excess of 70 million. The Garda are investigating a money trail that is likely to trace his multi-million pound fortune back to an IRA slot machine scam in London in the 1980s.
	In recent years, the IRA purchased businesses in Dublin and further afield. These were usually high-turnover cash businesses, such as public houses and gaming halls, that allowed the terrorists to launder dirty money, stolen cash and counterfeit notes. It is estimated that the provos own more than 20 pubs in Dublin alone, but their interests extend very much further. The IRA sought to use the proceeds of the Northern bank robbery to infiltrate the banking system in Bulgaria to provide the ultimate vehicle for laundering cash. The IRA's chief of staff, Slab Murphy, is the owner of a property portfolio that stretches to eastern Europe. He has made a personal fortune of 40 million on the back of a smuggling empire based at his farm that straddles the border with south Armagh. I have referred to these individuals in order to highlight to hon. Members just how deeply embedded criminality is within the IRA, including its upper echelons.

William McCrea: I am sure that the House will be greatly alarmed at some of the facts and figures that my hon. Friend is giving. Will he ask the Secretary of State to look into the suggestion that one of the leading members of the IRA and the army council, Martin McGuinness, has been a paid British agent for a long time?

Peter Robinson: I am not quite sure how much he might be getting for such a position, but I do know that there is considerable discomfort in the ranks of the republican movement as they each look over their shoulders to see where the next paid agent is going to come from. I am sure that the Secretary of State has heard what my hon. Friend has said and will want to scribble down a note and respond to it when he winds up.
	It is calculated that the IRA benefits to the tune of more than 100 million per annum from its criminal activities, yet what is the Government's response? The response clearly is to give it more funds. I believe that this type of misguided and untimely action by the Government dents community confidence and releases some of the pressure on republicans to desist from criminality. Although the sums associated with the allowances would be considerable for other political parties in Northern Ireland, they pale into insignificance when compared with the multi-million-pound coffers of the republican movement. However, the reinstatement of the allowance and the additional new allowance will encourage republicans to believe that the present level of criminality can be tolerated. With the proposals, the Government are sending the IRA the message that it has reached an acceptable level of criminality.
	The proposal to invent a new allowance for Sinn Fein alone is intolerable. Other parties receive Short money for the work that they do in the House, but I do not believe that Sinn Fein has any intention of using the funds that it will receive for that purpose. It will use them as part of its project of capturing the whole of the nationalist vote in Northern Ireland. The Government are effectively making a donation solely to republicans, while the IRA retains the proceeds of its ongoing crime. The motions stand alongside the Government's discredited on-the-runs Bill as the most bizarre and crazy proposals ever to be introduced in the House, and I hope that they meet the same end.

Brian Binley: I realise that we have little time, so I will try hard to limit my speech to the time available.
	I want to bring a slightly different perspective to the debate: the situation as seen through the eyes of most of the people whom I represent in Northampton. The House must have a connection with them, but I have heard little about that connection during the debate. I shall explain the point that I am trying to make by referring to one of my predecessors, Charles Bradlaugh. He stood for election three times in Northampton before he was successful, and when he was elected, he refused to take the Oath. He did that on four occasions and was expelled each time, but the people of Northampton returned him again and again until the Speaker agreed to allow him to make an affirmation and become a Member.
	Charles Bradlaugh acted honourably, suffered for his principles and was willing to pay the price. A comparison of his behaviour and that of Sinn Fein is unfavourable to the party. Bradlaugh stood by his principles, but Sinn Fein has lied about its activities. It continues to live off the proceeds of crime, yet expects to take the British taxpayers' money into the bargain. The majority of people in Northampton, South find that totally unacceptable and will not understand the Government's actions, especially with regard to Short money. The truth of the matter is that Sinn Fein says that it will not take part in this Parliament with a sovereign at its head, but is prepared to take the sovereign's money with her face printed all over it. Do not tell me that that is honourable, or that the people whom we represent will accept that point of view.
	We all know the job of a parliamentarian because it has been well laid out by the Senior Salaries Review Board. We are paid our salaries to represent in the House the people who elect us, and I believe that we also get our allowances to represent them, primarily in the House. People call the allowances expenses. They do not think that if they do not do a job, they should be able to claim expenses for it. Equally, they think that it is unbelievable that we are considering allowing individuals who do not do the job to which they were electedprimarily in the Houseto be able to claim expenses. I cannot explain or excuse that to the people of Northampton, South.
	I was not a Member when Short money was first debated, so I do not need to abide by the ruling of the time and can argue as I want. However, I am a Member when the new money is being debated. I find the proposal reprehensible, as will the people whom I represent. They will think that the Government are giving a bribe for an underhand deal and I do not know how I can explain to them that that is not the case. The debate and the motions are abhorrent, so I will vote against both motions and tell the people of Northamptonshire exactly why I have done so.

David Lidington: We have had a vigorous debate in which a large number of hon. Members on both sides of the House participated. What came through in particular was the widespread concern expressed from all quarters about the Government's proposed innovation of a new bespoke parliamentary allowance, as the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) described it, designed to fit Sinn Fein, which would parallel Short money. I noted the comments made at different stages by the hon. Members for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey), for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) and for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay), and the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), who, along with hon. Members from various Opposition parties, questioned the appropriateness of the measure. It was ironic that the Government's chief support came from an unlikely alliance of the hon. Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn), in his new found vocation as a cheerleader for the Treasury Bench, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), in that fine English tradition of the radical aristocrat who has appeared in our politics from time to time through the centuries.
	The Government's case rests on two assertions, each primarily concerned with Northern Ireland rather than with the notion of the duties and rights of membership of the House. The first limb of their argument is that the restoration of allowances was a recommendation of the most recent report of the Independent Monitoring Commission, but that argument can be used to defend only motion 4, relating to the restoration of suspended allowances. Before rushing to approve that motion, the House will want to weigh up the positive comments that the IMC made about the republican movement alongside the ugly realities that it also reportedthe continuing involvement of senior members of the republican movement in serious organised crime, the persistence of spying and intelligence gathering, the scandal that people are still exiled from Northern Ireland and afraid to return home because of paramilitary threats, and the use by republicans of community restorative justice as an instrument to ensure paramilitary control over nationalist and republican communities.
	Even if we were persuaded that the positive recommendations outweighed those definite negatives, the IMC's report still cannot justify either the Government's decision to backdate the ending of suspension or the creation of the bespoke allowance to parallel Short money.

Lady Hermon: Will the hon. Gentleman make it clear that the IMC can recommend or comment only on sanctions that are attached to the Assembly allowance? Although it likes the jurisdiction that it has, it does not run to allowances in the House at all.

David Lidington: The hon. Lady is right. My memory of the IMC's terms of reference is that its remit on recommending sanctions relates only to Northern Ireland institutions, not to institutions at Westminster. If my memory is correct, the IMC explicitly pointed out in the original report, in which it recommended the suspension of Stormont allowances about a year ago, that its remit did not extend to Westminster and declined to make recommendations in that respect.

Lady Hermon: Perhaps it would be helpful to the hon. Gentleman if I read out the terms of reference. It reads:
	The Commission may also recommend what measures, if any, it considers might appropriately be taken by the Northern Ireland Assembly, such measures being limited to those which the . . . Assembly has power to take under relevant United Kingdom law.
	The IMC has no jurisdiction over how we vote on the motions.

David Lidington: The hon. Lady makes a telling point.
	The second and perhaps central argument that the Government advanced this afternoon was that the two motions are in some way an important contribution to the overall peace process. My right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) and other hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik), said that there is pretty well unanimous support on both sides of the House for the Government objective of seeing devolution restored in Northern Ireland on the basis of an end to paramilitary and criminal activity.
	The trouble with the Government's line in defending their motions is that we have not had from Ministers an explanation of exactly how the two motions are supposed to contribute to the fulfilment of a shared political goal. We had no description from the Leader of the House about the way in which the Government hope or expect Sinn Fein will change either its ideology or its actions as a result of votes this evening. Will it start supporting the police if we pass the motions? Will it recognise the legitimacy of the courts?

Gwyneth Dunwoody: Is there not an even simpler answer? Will Sinn Fein use the money to get support for the work that could be done by coming to the House of Commons?

David Lidington: I agree with the implication behind the hon. Lady's question. I will dwell on the issue at greater length in a short time.
	The irony is that Sinn Fein, of all parties, is not short of cash. As the right hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) said, the amounts that we are debating today are small change in the context of the profits that have been made from a succession of robberies and other crimes over the years. The Government defend these motions on the ground that they will help to sustain the political process, but I fear that they will have the opposite effect. Suspicion about the Government's motives will breed along with deals that may have been done behind closed doors. As the hon. Member for Foyle said, there has been too much about the political process that has been about fixing things to suit Sinn Fein. It is time that we had less ambiguity and greater transparency if we are to have a chance of building trust and confidence, which presently is at a low level.
	The debate has focused largely on motion 3 concerning the new allowance. There was widespread concern in the House about the ambiguity over what the money is supposed to be used for. There would have been some logic to the Government's position had Ministers come forward with a motion to say that from now on allowances paid to all parties would be to support them in their representative functions. I think that the hon. Member for Thurrock made that point.
	If motion 3 is passed, we shall be in a position where a party with elected Members has a choice. Those Members can take up their seats and claim Short money but accept the limitation that those payments must be limited to support for parliamentary activities, or they can decline to take up their seats and obtain money from the new allowance to support all representative activities. It seems that a difference in the type of activity that would qualify for funding is inherent in the difference in the language that is used to describe Short money and that used to set out the terms of the motion.
	My quarrel with the Government's supporters, particularly my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, concerns the rights and duties of a Member of Parliament. I accept completely my right hon. and learned Friend's assertion that the privilege of election confers certain rights on us, but those rights are accompanied by responsibilities. The very fact that rules exist in the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament making payment and allowances conditional on Members taking their seats reflects the fact that to take a seat and participate is seen as the central function and duty of an elected Member in any legislature. We should not forget that until a mere five years ago that was the tradition or belief on which we acted in the House.

George Howarth: Far be it for me to try to represent the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), but the burden of his argument is not that those Members are elected and refuse to take up those duties but that they are elected on the conviction that they will not take their seats in the House. There is a difference.

David Lidington: The hon. Gentleman and I differ on this point, but I simply do not believe that one can remove from the duty of membership of a legislature the notion of taking one's seat and participating. It is integral to the role of an elected representative, and it is an abdication of responsibility to avoid taking that course of action. We delude ourselves about the nature of the responsibility of elected representatives if we try to create two classes of MPs as the motions propose.
	It is not just a matter of the Oath, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham would agree. If it were a matter of the exact words that we were asked to swear or affirm at the beginning of a Parliament, he would have a stronger case. I note, however, that the Oath was not in the end an obstacle for De Valera and his Fianna Fail colleagues, and did not prevent them from taking their seats in the Dail in the late 1920s. I believe that Sinn Fein Members should take their seats. Although I loathe their politics, I would welcome their presence in the Chamber, where they could take part in debate and hold Ministers to account. Like my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack), I have urged them to do so. As a number of Members have said, it is important that the House should remember that all of us, once elected, have a duty to represent the interests of constituents who did not vote for us or who did not vote at all, just as we represent people who voted for us or for our political party. The two thirds of the electorate in the five Sinn Fein-held parliamentary constituencies deserve to have their interests represented, just as much as the third who voted for Sinn   Fein candidates. The House of Commons deals with legislation on infrastructure for Newry; with environmental regulations affecting farmers in Fermanagh and Tyrone; and with education and training opportunities in west Belfast. It is an abdication of duty for those Members not to represent the interests of their constituents in the House.
	Five years ago, I voted against the introduction of allowances for Members who declined to take their seats, and I will continue to vote in accordance with my belief, and vote against motion 4. Motion 3, which would create a parallel to Short money, amounts to little more than a corruption of the system of allowances, so it deserves forthright opposition in every quarter of the House. This is a free vote for my party, but I hope that as many of my right hon. and hon. Friends as possible will join me in voting against both motions.

Peter Hain: We can probably all agree that this afternoon's debate was one of the occasions that shows the House at its best, not only speaking with passionI recognise that arguments have been made against the position that I am about to put, and I understand and respect those argumentsbut speaking about the values and integrity of the House. There is an issue to wrestle with. I understand that, and I recognise the points made by the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack), among others.
	Whatever our arguments, we can agree that Sinn Fein contested and won elections to the House. As the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) and others mentioned, Sinn Fein Members were elected on a mandate not to take their seats. They are therefore not entitled to the salaries which follow from taking the Oath, and they do not get salaries. Nevertheless, they are Members of the House and their electorate have rights. Their constituents perhaps especially those who did not vote for themhave rights, and the House has a responsibility to respect those rights.
	That is why the House has already determinedI stress has already determinedthe principle that Sinn Fein MPs should receive MPs' allowances. That decision was made in December 2001. Some right hon. and hon. Members are trying to rerun that decision, but we should respect the will of the House, as determined in 2001. I note that the shadow Leader of the Houseit has just been repeated by the shadow Northern Ireland spokesmanis opposed in principle to that. I understand that. It is not to do with what was or was not in the IMC report. It is not to do with the level of paramilitary activity, criminality or violence. They are in principle opposed to the granting of MPs' allowances to Sinn Fein Members who have refused to take the Oath.
	That is a perfectly defensible position, although I note that when I pressed her on the matter, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) was not rock solidly committed to it. She was not willing to say that if a Conservative Government were elected after the next election and she were Leader of the House, she would sweep those allowances away. So she is not that committed to the principle.

Patrick Cormack: rose

Peter Hain: I will allow the hon. Gentleman in, but it is important that I have time to reply to the debate.

Patrick Cormack: I am grateful. The point I wanted to make is that no Parliament can bind its successors. The decision that was taken in 2001 was taken by a previous Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman is therefore misplacing his criticism when he says that we should accept the will of the House. The will of that House is not necessarily the will of the present House.

Peter Hain: Even though the hon. Gentleman is such an experienced parliamentarian, I do not think that that is correct. When the House makes a decision, that stays in force until the House changes that decision, in respect of a number of issues. I shall return to the point.
	On 10 March 2005 the House resolved to suspend the allowancesI moved the motionfollowing a report by the Independent Monitoring Commission on IRA culpability in the Northern bank robbery and the murder of Robert McCartney. But that was a suspension, not a rejection, of allowances for Sinn Fein. In the two motions today I am asking the House to acknowledge that since then, and perhaps even encouraged a little by that suspension, the situation has changed dramatically for the bettermuch better even than for the three years during which Sinn Fein Members were in receipt of House allowances. The House might want to bear that in mind.
	Whatever views there may be of Sinn Fein and the IRA, the context of this debate is another report of the IMC. In its eighth report published last week, the IMC advised that the financial measures taken against Sinn Fein were no longer justified. The IMC reached its view after a detailed and considered review of all the available information, including intelligence information. The report states clearly that the Provisional IRA
	uniquely among paramilitary organisations, has taken the strategic decision to eschew terrorism and pursue a political path,
	and it concludes that
	there are a number of signs that the organisation is moving in the way it indicated in its statement of 28 July 2005.
	On that basis, the report clearly and unambiguously recommends that the financial measures against Sinn Fein should be discontinued:
	We do not believe that financial measures against Sinn Fein of the kind referred to in our Fourth Report should continue.
	I strongly believe that such a clear recommendation from the IMC deserves an equally clear response from this House, and the Government's tabling of the motions before the House this evening is such a response. The restoration of allowances and the motion to grant financial assistance for representative business is intended further to encourage the republican movement along the path of democratic politics.
	The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) has reaffirmed his party's opposition to the principle of granting allowances to hon. Members who have not taken the Oath. Interestingly, on BBC Ulster this morning, he said that the Oath of loyalty to the Queen should be re-examined if it would mean Sinn Fein MPs taking their seats in the House of Commons. That is an interesting proposition, although I note that he has not advocated it this evening.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth) raised an important questionthe definition of representativethat goes to the heart of the matter. The proposal has been modelled on the Short money model. Parliamentary business is not defined in the Short money resolution, either, but the guidance to the auditor on Short money makes it clear that Short money cannot be used for political campaigning and   similar partisan activities, political fundraising, membership campaigns and personal or private business. That guidance would apply to representative pursuits by Sinn Fein Members.
	Motion 3 on the Order Paper makes it clear that the money must go on expenses exclusively incurred by the support of
	spokesmen in relation to the party's representative business.
	Hon. Members should note that the Short money resolution passed in 1999 does not define parliamentary business any more than this motion defines representative business. Both phrases must be interpreted by the accounting officer and the auditor, and the rules are strict.
	The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik) asked whether the House's accounting officer can issue guidance. As I have said, the accounting officer provides a note for the auditor giving some guidance on Short money. If motion 3 is passed, the issue would be a matter for the accounting officer, who may want to consider whether and how to issue guidance, and I am sure my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House would be happy to discuss that matter with him. It is also possible that the Members Estimate Committee or the House of Commons Commission would want to look at the guidance, too. The situation must be policed carefully and the rules must be rigorously enforced. It is not a question of simply handing over 85,000, because, as the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) has said, a properly audited application is required.

Lembit �pik: Can the House take that as a commitment of parliamentary time, if it is necessary following advice from the people whom the Secretary of State has described?

Peter Hain: That matter is for the Leader of the House. I not sure whether parliamentary time will be required, but if it is, representations can be made to the Leader of the House. However, the Members Estimate Committee and the House of Commons Commissions can make their own decisions and report them to the House.
	The right hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) has suggested that I might have questioned his commitment to peace, but I have never done so. In the nine months in which I have been in this job, we have worked together to achieve peace, and I would not challenge his absolute commitment to peace in Northern Ireland. We have had an honest debate about how to bolt down peace and make sure that it becomes permanent.
	The Government deserve some credit for the enormous transformation in Northern Ireland. I am not in any way suggesting that if motion 3 were not passed and the 84,000 were not granted to Sinn Fein, it would go back to terrorism or violence. I have never suggested thatnor, contrary to criticisms made during the debate, has the Leader of the House. It would be absurd to do so. The question is how we can, through today's decision, encourage the republican movement and others to take the process forwards, not backwards.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) asked several important questions. I welcome his support for motion 4 on ending the suspension of allowances to Sinn Fein Members. He is troubled by motion 3, and I understand that. He said that its only direct reference to the Short money resolution, and therefore implicitly to the scope of that resolution, is in paragraph (2), but that in fact deals with the method of calculation. Technically speaking, he is right. However, it is clear from the way in which the motion is drafted, and from today's debate, that if it is passed, the intention of the House will be that the Short money model is applied as closely as possible; although of course it is not Short money as such. I am sure that we can expect the House to implement it in that way.
	It is important to recognise that all Opposition Front Benchers travel throughout the country making speeches as part of their parliamentary functions. Part of Sinn Fein's representative functions in future could be making speeches that arise from their position as Members of Parliament. I did not think that it would be sensible for the Commons to get into the question whether a Short money-funded researcher was only drafting speeches delivered in this House or was also helping to draft speeches delivered as part of an MP's or Front-Bench spokesman's responsibilities outside the House. Precisely those issues arise in the motion and precisely those issues of policing will be applied by the auditor and by the House authorities.
	The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) asked several questions about allegations that he has made. I will look at Hansard before I consider my response.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: I want to make a very simple point. Short money was granted by the House of Commons because Front Benchers were known not to have the money to support researchers. The research that they needed was in direct connection with their parliamentary duties. There has never been any doubt about that, and it does not need to be spelled outthe House of Commons knew that that was what the money was for. This proposal is not only a negation, but a positive distortion, of that idea.

Peter Hain: As I said, this applies the Short money principle and model, with all its policing arrangements, to representative functions on behalf of Sinn Fein MPs.
	The IMC report indicates that considerable organisational change is happening within the Provisional IRA to close down criminal operations. It states that there have been no IRA robberies or murdersinstances which occasioned the suspension of the allowances by the House in March last year. YetI agree with the right hon. Member for North Antrim and the hon. Member for Belfast, Eastsome members and former members are engaged in localised criminality, and we have to shut that down and demand that they cease it.
	The report further points out the very difficult distinction to be drawn between organised and sanctioned criminality and that undertaken by individuals for personal gain. The distinction is difficult but the principle is not. Criminality is wrong, and the motions should in no way be taken as an indication of Government tolerance on that front.
	Amid the emotions engendered in this debate, it is easy, when viewing the situation through the prism of a highly selective reading of the report, to lose sight of how far we have come. I do not for one moment dismiss the genuine and serious concerns that many people have over these issues, but I ask the House to look at the whole picture and not to view progress through that restrictive prism.
	That brings me, in conclusion, to a point that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House made in his opening commentsthis is, at heart, an issue of democracy. Do we want Sinn Fein representing its constituents and developing as a democratic party? Do we want Sinn Fein playing the fullest role that it can in the Palace of Westminster?
	The question before the House is whether we want to recognise that progress and encourage the republican movement further down the path of democracy. The transition from conflict to peace was always going to be tortuousinternational experience demonstrates that such transitions always are. The House has the opportunity tonight to vote for normalisation of politics[Interruption.] On behalf of all parties in Northern Ireland, Sinn Fein included, the House, by supporting the motions, is voting for a Northern Ireland of democracy, hope, peace and stability.

Question put:
	The House divided: Ayes 315, Noes 215.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That, in the opinion of the House,
	(1) Financial assistance should be provided, with effect from 1st November 2005, to any opposition party represented by Members who have chosen not to take their seats and thus do not qualify to participate in the proceedings in Parliament, towards expenses wholly, exclusively and necessarily incurred for the employment of staff and related support to Members designated as that party's spokesmen in relation to the party's representative business.
	(2) The amount of financial assistance payable to a party under this Resolution shall be calculated and paid by analogy with sub-paragraphs 1(1) to (6) and (8) and 2(1) to (5) of the Resolution of the House of 26th May 1999.
	  (3) As soon as practicable, but no later than nine months after 31st March each year, a party claiming financial assistance under this resolution shall furnish the Accounting Officer of the House with the certificate of an independent professional auditor, in a form determined by the Accounting Officer, to the effect that all expenses in respect of which the party received financial assistance during the period ending with that day were incurred exclusively in accordance with paragraph (1) of this resolution.
	(4) If an audit certificate under paragraph (3) above has not been furnished within the time specified no further financial assistance under this resolution shall be paid until such a certificate is so furnished.

SUPPORT FOR MEMBERS WHO HAVE CHOSEN NOT TO TAKE THEIR SEATS

Motion made, and Question proposed forthwith, pursuant to Order [this day],
	That the Resolution of the House of 10th March 2005 relating to Support for Members who have chosen not to take their Seats be amended by substituting for the words 'a period of suspension of one year commencing on 1st April' the words 'the period 1st April 2005 to 31st October'.[Mr. Cawsey.]
	Question put:
	The House divided: Ayes 329, Noes 178.

Question accordingly agreed to.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Employment and Training

That the draft Industrial Training Levy (Construction Board) Order 2006, which was laid before this House on 9th January, be approved.[Mr. Cawsey.]
	Question agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Employment and Training

That the draft Industrial Training Levy (Engineering Construction Board) Order 2006, which was laid before this House on 9th January, be approved.[Mr. Cawsey.]
	Question agreed to.

PETITION
	  
	Sir Charles Dilke Memorial Hospital

Mark Harper: I am sure that my constituents will be pleased that the Prime Minister, the Government and the entire parliamentary Labour party have attended tonight to listen to this petition from the supporters of the Sir Charles Dilke memorial hospital. Sir Charles Dilke was, of course, a former Member of this House for the Forest of Dean constituency.
	The petition has 6,056 signatures and declares:
	To the House of Commons.
	The Petition of supporters of the Sir Charles Dilke Memorial Hospital,
	Declares that the Petitioners object to proposals to move the Sir Charles Dilke Memorial Hospital from its present site. The Petitioners further declare that the present Hospital should be extended and improved.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to take immediate steps to ensure that the Sir Charles Dilke Memorial Hospital continues to provide all services at its present site,
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	To lie upon the Table.

Alistair Burt: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The House is unnaturally full for this time of the evening, and I ask for your guidance. For the sake of history, Mr. Speaker, would not it be best if Labour Members were arranged in a different sequence, with real socialists on one side, moderate socialists in the middle, and friends of the Prime Minister and friends of the next Prime Minister in some distinguishable array?

Mr. Speaker: Members can reserve a seat only if they come to Prayers.

Representative Democracy in the UK

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.[Mr. Cawsey]

Ann Clwyd: We all know why we are here tonightto discuss representative democracy in the United Kingdom.
	A hundred years ago, there was an important election for Britain. We in the Labour party are especially proud to be celebrating the centenary of the first meeting in the House of Commons of the Labour party as an organised body of MPs, held on 12 February 1906. The 29 Labour MPsall menwere starting a parliamentary party that would shape the next century of British politics.
	The Labour movement has its roots in the desire to improve the lives of the disadvantaged, the disfranchised and the dispossessed. The parliamentary Labour party has for 100 years been the voice of the many, not the few. It is fitting that we gather today in the Chamber to debate the achievements of those 100 years, for it is here and in the Lobbies that Labour MPs such as Keir Hardie spoke for, voted for and delivered the agenda of the first manifestofrom universal suffrage, free health care, devolution and national insurance to the national minimum wage[Hon. Members: Hear, hear.]
	Today we are a party of men and women, as committed to the ideals of social justice as ever, as committed to the interests of the many as ever, and as restless and demanding of a fairer, more just and prosperous society, where prosperity is created and used for the benefit of all.
	In 1906 it must have seemed that the first Labour MPs represented the many in the very House of the few. Those mensocialists, trade unionists, intellectuals and workerswere elected on a franchise of only a quarter of the adult population, which excluded women, as well as many men without property or land or who did not pay high rent.

Gerald Kaufman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that among the Labour MPs at that first meeting was the Member for Gorton, John Hodge, who started a run of Labour Members of Parliament in that constituency? Apart from 1931 to 1935, there have been 100 years of continuous Labour representation in the Gorton constituency. Will my right hon. Friend pay tribute not only to John Hodge, the first ever Minister for Labour, but to the people of Gorton for remaining faithful to the Labour party?

Ann Clwyd: I will indeed. My right hon. Friend is a Member for a constituency that has returned a Labour MP for 100 yearsalong with my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Havard), whose constituency has also returned a Labour Member for 100 years. I congratulate those constituencies on having the foresight to continue to do so.
	As Labour's first manifesto put it,
	The House of Commons is supposed to be the people's House, and yet the people are not there. Landlords, employers, lawyers, brewers and financiers are there in force. Why not Labour?
	It was a dozen years before universal male suffrage would be granted, and more than 20 before women were treated equally with men. Those Labour pioneers came to the House of Commons with a purpose. Although vastly outnumbered in our first Parliament they achieved a great deal, from reversing the Taff Vale judgment to strengthening the legal rights of trade unions in the Trade Disputes Act 1906. Labour was also successful that year in securing the Workmen's Compensation Act 1906, and the Education (Provision of Meals) Act 1906. Confronting those two bread-and-butter issuesschool meals and compensation for industrial injuryhas made a real difference to all our constituents: a sign of things to come.
	Another landmark achievement of the first parliamentary Labour party was the 1908 Right to Work Bill. Unemployment brought poverty and destitution, which helped to explain why, according to the Government's own admission, coroners blamed the 1906 deaths of 49 Londoners on starvation. The Bill sought to make local authorities responsible for finding work for the unemployed and for providing maintenance if no work could be found. It entailed both a deliberate national effort to tackle the trade cycle and the introduction into law of the revolutionary principle that work was a right. The Bill did not become law, but Labour's assertion of the importance of full employment and the dignity of work has been a central part of Labour's politics ever since.
	The first chair of the parliamentary Labour party was James Keir Hardie. Wisely, the chair of the parliamentary Labour party was also leader of the party. As the current chair of the parliamentary Labour party, I applaud and endorse that tradition. Keir Hardie led Labour for two years, and after ill health, was succeeded by Arthur Hendersona popular trade unionist and Wesleyan lay preacherwho later became Labour's first Cabinet Minister. The MPs elected in 1906 included the first Labour Prime Minister, Ramsay MacDonald, and Chancellor of the Exchequer, Philip Snowden.
	When the extension of the franchise came in 1918, Labour won the votes of many of those who now had a voice. Labour took office for the first time in 1924, and again in 1929. Then, after the long years in opposition of the 1930s, it joined the Churchill coalition in the second world war, before the 1945 election[Hon. Members: Hooray!]brought Labour's great landslide. The 1945 Government became one of the most reforming in British history[Hon. Members: Hear, hear.]with the national health service, national insurance, freedom for India, housing, the nationalisation of industry and the foundations of the welfare state.
	Sadly, the 1945 Government fell victim to the pressures that every reforming Government face. The natural desires to change further, reform more and become more radical are pressed against the need to balance resources, proceed gradually and manage change. These pressuresthe language of priorities to take a famous phrasehave been at the root of Labour's failings as much as our reforming instincts have been at the heart of our successes. Despite our achievements in the 20th century, Labour was in power for only 23 years. The 21st century is getting better, and I am hopeful that we will beat our previous record by 2023.
	It is right that we mark our successes, but we should also think of all the times when we were not in office, when we were unable to help those who needed us, and unable to support the poorest and the most disadvantaged. We should think why we were not in power more often, and how we can make sure that we are even more successful in the next 100 years than in the last 100 years.
	Some 100 years on from the founding of the parliamentary Labour party, we celebrate the achievement of those pioneers and their legacy. The Labour party that evolved into a party of government created the NHS, brought education for all and built the welfare state. It was those pioneers that built the party that more recent heroes, such as Attlee, Bevan, Bevin, Gaitskell, Foot and Castle, would join. It was these pioneers who built the party that our current parliamentarians knowthe party that introduced the minimum wage, introduced tax credits, gave more rights to workers and to unions, extended rights for parents, gave a savings account to every child and enacted the biggest hospital programme in Britain's history.
	Today we mark the Labour pioneers, all their successors who served their constituencies as Labour Members of Parliament in the last century in this Chamber, and the laws that they enacted. They served their country well.
	Just as Keir Hardie moved at the end of that first meeting in 1906, I move that this House do now adjourn.

Bridget Prentice: Sometimes one comes to an Adjournment debate when only the initiator of the debate and the Minister are in the House. I am not quite sure what has happened this evening. Furthermore, the Minister often has to reject the views expressed by the debate's initiator. I can say that, for once, that will not be the case tonight.
	I can also say that this Labour Government absolutely agree with all my right hon. Friend's complimentary and inspiring comments about the Labour party in Parliament over the past 100 years. As she said, in the 1906 election the Labour Representation Committee fielded some 50 candidates and, exactly 100 years ago this Sunday, the 29 successful LRC MPs filed into Committee Room 12 to meet for the first time as the parliamentary Labour party. Their aims were straightforward. As Labour's manifesto for 1906 said:
	This election is to decide whether or not Labour is to be fairly represented in Parliament.
	They were all men at that time; women had not been granted the right to vote. It was only because Labour campaigned for that right that women eventually achieved it. It is fitting that the Adjournment debate was introduced tonight by a woman and that it is now being replied to by one. That is what this partyour party, whether in Parliament or outsidehas always and, I hope, will always be about: helping people to realise their potential regardless of their background. When those men met 100 years ago this weekend, they realised that Parliament and, beyond that, forming a Government were the best way to reach those ambitions. We might not always succeed and we might sometimes try to reach beyond what we can achieve, but this partythe Labour partyon behalf of the people, will always try to enact the commitment that people give to us when they vote Labour.
	So, 1906 was a vital year for the Labour party and Parliament, but there was a good deal else going on at the time, too. For instance, the Daily Mail tried to pour scornold habits die hardon women campaigning for the vote by dismissively dubbing them, for the first time, suffragettes. The result of Labour pressure in Parliament from 1906 meant that we saw the introduction of the Merchant Shipping Act 1906 to improve conditions at sea, the Trade Disputes Act 1906 to legalise peaceful picketing and the Workmen's Compensation Act 1906, which meant that 6 million workers became entitled, for the first time, to compensation for accidents and industrial diseases.
	Those measures were of real and practical help to people. They helped people, their families and their communities to achieve their full potential. They sought to enact what Labour at its best has always sought to enact: social justice and economic success hand in hand. The measures expressed in practice our valuesLabour valuesbecause our values remain unchanged: fairness, justice, tolerance, decency and compassion. Those values were what Labour stood for 100 years ago in the House, and they are the values that Labour stands for in the House today.
	The way in which we apply those values must reflect the changing nature of people's lives. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister is rightly fond of saying,
	traditional values in a modern setting.
	That is exactly what the Labour party in Parliament encapsulates, just as those 29 founders did, for their time, 100 years ago. They had a new century spread out in front of them; so do we now. Just as their agenda and programme for change was of a large scale, so, too, is ours.
	Labour in Parliament has done much in 100 years. We have created the national health service, provided education for all and built a welfare state, but we all know that we have a great deal more to do. Reforming and improving key institutions and key achievements is a constant task. Maintaining our vigilance and security is a constant task. Securing a strong economy and a good society is a constant task, whether in 2006 or 1906. We know now, as our forebears knew then, that Parliament is the best vehicle to achieve change and to use power for progressive ends. Keir Hardie, the first chair of the PLP, might well have been baffled by some of the means by which we try to achieve change, such as television and the internet, but he would have recognised both the goals that we are seeking to secure and, perhaps most of all, what we are doing this for.
	Let me return, as my right hon. Friend did, to the 1906 Labour manifesto. When its authors said:
	The House of Commons is supposed to be the people's House,
	they were absolutely right. They said that
	the people are not there,
	and clearly thought that it was Labour's job to see that they were. That job then is our job nowin 1906 and 2006. There were the same aims and the same values Labour valuesthen and now. Making sure that this is the people's House was a job that the parliamentary Labour party was proud to take on in 1906, and it is a job that this parliamentary Labour party is proud to continue in 2006. Let me commend the 21st century as being Labour's century.
	Question put and agreed to.

Correction

Adjourned accordingly at eleven minutes to Seven o'clock.

Deferred Division

Intellectual Property

That the draft Artist's Resale Right Regulations 2006, which were laid before this House on 15 December, be approved.
	The House divided: Ayes 332, Noes 159.

Question accordingly agreed to.